Re: [MENTORS] Mentor guidance document

d interest in the success of the project and already know how to apply the Apache Way to new communities so that they might flourish in their own way. Ross --- Sent from my phone, you know what that means - sorry From: Justin Mclean Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2019

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

lem that needs to be solved, but let's worry about that when it's actually a problem rather than a hypothetical one. Ross --- Sent from my phone, you know what that means - sorry From: Justin Mclean Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 3:04:46 PM To: general@inc

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

lease gets a little better, and each time the community grows, and more people understand the processes and problems. Greg - I propose that you, Ross (sorry for volunteering you), and I pick an incubating project in need of mentor attention and make this as streamlined as we can. Let's focus on

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

When I used to do endless apache way talks I used to say "if you are using an Incubator project expect to invest in both engineering and legal, but once a project is a TLP your legal can reduce and engineering becomes about your use rather than community progrwe towards TLP" In other words Jim

Re: Business decisions and risk (was: [DISCUSS] IPMC votes on releases)

Thanks Greg, I am fully in support of your position here. The ASF is supposed to make it easier for developers to develop. It is not supposed to be creating red tape to guard the entrance to the hallowed halls. Ross From: Greg Stein Sent: Sunday

Re: Podlings, the Incubator, relationships and Apache

Jim said "Let's also recall that the origin genesis of the Incubator was NOT to provide legal oversight, but rather education and guidance into The Apache Way" I say... HEAR! HEAR! Get Outlook for Android From: Jim Jagielski Sent: Tuesday

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentors SHOULD vote on podling releases prior to asking IPMC to vote

Myrle makes a good point. As a mentor (is been a long time though) I tried to cast my vote after there were at least 3 views from the community. Once I saw the ppmc catching issues I was missing, or I was simply ratifying their view, it was time to graduate. The IPMC should have nothing to do w

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentors SHOULD vote on podling releases prior to asking IPMC to vote

diately without creating additional work for anyone. Ross From: Justin Mclean Sent: Monday, April 1, 2019 3:42 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Mentors SHOULD vote on podling releases prior to asking IPMC to vote Hi, When Ro

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentors SHOULD vote on podling releases prior to asking IPMC to vote

che.org%2Fthread.html%2F6e26ccaecba70a5cde1f808d82499701562f370441067b96ca65f09a%40%253Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%253E&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf3f98ab49c294fdee58408d6b65a22eb%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636896895573897795&sdata=oQg4R6ms2IRkfoGdVAf54vUrhXLaq9DIbmk%2F4SzwTvE%3D&reserved=0 On Mon, A

Re: [DISCUSS] Mentors SHOULD vote on podling releases prior to asking IPMC to vote

ep in the right direction, but it doesn't go far enough in my opinion. Ross Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> From: Craig Russell Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 8:30:35 PM To: Incubator Subject: [DISCUSS] Mentors SHOULD vote on podling releases

Re: List of Projects that went straight to Top Level Projects

sufficient experience in the PMC to start with. Ross From: Geertjan Wielenga Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 4:51 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org; sha...@apache.org Subject: Re: List of Projects that went straight to Top Level Projects Ah, OK. I’d be

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

e cited my point #1 (if VP Legal says it's a blocker then it's a blocker). Ross From: Justin Mclean Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 3:54 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues Hi, >

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

From: Myrle Krantz Sent: Saturday, March 30, 3:00 AM Subject: Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues To: general@incubator.apache.org On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 9:11 AM Ross Gardler wrote: > As for not enough votes i refer you to Roy's suggestion on board@. > Essenti

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

For 2, yes I'm saying exactly that. It's long been an expectation in apache that a -1 be accompanied by a willingness to help fix the problem. There are a few exceptions, such as releases. That's why I have #1 of something is not approved by legal and infra then a -1 reflects that. If the -1 is

Re: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues

community then they won't be able to do a release so the conversation is moot Ross From: Justin Mclean Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 7:24 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Voting on releases with serious unaddressed issues Hi, The Netbea

Re: A smaller IPMC

I think this thread misses the point of the original observation. Firstly, I've not seen anyone suggest that removing inactive IPMC members will make any difference. What I've seen is a suggestion that active IPMC members on general@ should be expected to be on the private list. While there are

Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: .... introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ... release candidates))

recognized (their apache.org account remains active, for example). Ross Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> From: Dmitriy Pavlov Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 12:08:49 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibiliti

Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: .... introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ... release candidates))

Apache Ignite, but I don't clearly understand why remained members resisting this change. пн, 4 мар. 2019 г. в 09:58, Ross Gardler : > That's right Greg. And since we are filling in gaps for people... > > I was originally against the pTLP concept (though I supported the >

Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: .... introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ... release candidates))

d to fix it. I look forward to hearing how the IPMC will seek to strip down the bureaucracy and get back to mentoring the incoming projects on how the ASF is structured so they can get (relatively) quick and clear answers to their questions. Ross From: Greg

Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: .... introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ... release candidates))

formal releases. Ross From: Craig Russell Sent: Sunday, March 3, 2019 7:48 PM To: Incubator Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ..

Re: Tying Dockerhub into development and release management

These would not be official releases. One or more of your community can create Docker builds from apache released source. Ideally the build files will be part of the ASF project. Dockerhub has GitHub integration, so all it takes is for someone in the community to create the account and connect

Re: Meritocracy, initial contributors and (Incubator) Proposals

Some very general guidance - https://community.apache.org/newcommitter.html Get Outlook for Android From: Lars Francke Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2019 8:34:10 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Meritocracy, initial contributors a

RE: New member - Help me to find out project

Short version is all projects need your help. See http://community.apache.org/newcomers/ for some guidance on finding one that suits you. -Original Message- From: $uMe$h <1cool.1...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2018 12:11 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: New memb

RE: Mentor capactity of the incubator

I trust to do a good job. Ross -Original Message- From: Greg Stein Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2018 4:29 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Mentor capactity of the incubator On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 2:18 AM Justin Mclean wrote: >... > For IPMC members who are unable to

RE: Incubator Workshop

f how different communities apply those principles in different ways. However, I'm 100% against an opinionated piece that gives the impression that there is only one way to do things here in Apache. We already have way too much of that in Incubator docs. Ross -Original Message- From:

RE: The role of a mentor

me time. It *is* very time consuming if we are to do it right, especially at the start. Ross -Original Message- From: Ted Dunning Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 9:56 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: The role of a mentor I try to be more aware early on and then ease up lat

RE: The role of a mentor

mentor a new project. It's a learning experience, it is NOT a teaching experience. Ross -Original Message- From: Jim Jagielski Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 7:32 AM To: general Subject: Re: The role of a mentor +1 > On Apr 9, 2018, at 12:45 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: > > Has anyo

RE: The role of a mentor

a learning experience, it is NOT a teaching experience. Ross -Original Message- From: Jim Jagielski Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 7:32 AM To: general Subject: Re: The role of a mentor +1 > On Apr 9, 2018, at 12:45 PM, Julian Hyde wrote: > > Has anyone here taught someone h

RE: [DISCUSS] Apache Amaterasu Incubator Proposal

Exciting stuff, it may have already been said but the name is pretty bad. To my (native) English ear it sounds like "Amateur". Ross -Original Message- From: Jean-Baptiste Onofré [mailto:j...@nanthrax.net] Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 11:39 PM To: general@incubator.apache.o

RE: [VOTE] Apache Fineract podling graduation

+ 1 (binding) Great job Fineract team. Ross -Original Message- From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman Shaposhnik Sent: Monday, March 20, 2017 8:12 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache Fineract podling graduation +1

RE: [VOTE] Gobblin to enter Apache Incubator

+1 (binding) Not signing up to mentor, but I will be watching and hopefully helping from the sidelines. -Original Message- From: Jean-Baptiste Onofré [mailto:j...@nanthrax.net] Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 11:27 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Gobblin to ent

RE: Consult License Compatible Issue

Less of a compatible/incompatible list, more of an Apache Policy with respect to allowable licenses in ASF software... http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html -Original Message- From: yukon [mailto:yu...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 2:21 AM To: general@incubator.apache.or

Re: [DISCUSS] China Contribution.

.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.apache.org&data=02%7C01%7CRoss.Gardler%40microsoft.com%7C808042edd5b14a5b10a208d40a6fcb8d%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636144922670097660&sdata=2oNou0brTf1%2BMauWp%2B9qS7RckBdCQ11RfDMnM92sQkI%3D&reserved=0>> >>> >>&g

RE: [DISCUSS] RocketMQ Incubation Proposal

+1 > -Original Message- > From: Luke Han [mailto:luke...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2016 4:46 AM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] RocketMQ Incubation Proposal > > > My feeling reading RocketMQ is that its done in a "this is why > > RocketMQ is better

Re: [DISCUSS] RocketMQ Incubation Proposal

right mentors the project can succeed. Bruce, thanks for stepping up to help. Ross --- Twitter: @rgardler From: Bruce Snyder Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2016 9:21:47 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] RocketMQ Incubation Proposal Hi

Permission to Edit Wiki

Alan Ross

RE: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Yes, with a few binding -1's there is nothing to discuss unless Datastax wish to reconsider. I doubt they want to discuss that on a public list. Ross > -Original Message- > From: Henry Saputra [mailto:henry.sapu...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 10:57 PM

Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

Yep. As Greg points out this is to be considered a hostile fork. So I'm -1 as well. --- Twitter: @rgardler From: Henry Saputra Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 9:55:58 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal Tha

RE: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

I think the simplest definition of a "hostile fork" is this: Does the copyright owner object to the fork? Yes - it's hostile No - it’s not hostile Ross > -Original Message- > From: Julian Hyde [mailto:jh...@apache.org] > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 20

RE: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

OK, if Datastax are not objecting to the move then this is not a hostile fork. You should have your champion get clearance from legal@ for accepting this code under the open source license it is published under rather than under the SGA. Ross > -Original Message- > From: Ted

RE: [DISCUSS] Olympian Incubation Proposal

I see the GitHub code is untouched for over a year. Are Datastax objecting to the proposal or is it just that they are unwilling to actively supporting it? Ross > -Original Message- > From: Jean-Baptiste Onofré [mailto:j...@nanthrax.net] > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

I never said comparative use. --- Twitter: @rgardler From: Bertrand Delacretaz Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 1:47:38 PM To: Incubator General Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal) Le 25 sept. 2016

RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

of user numbers not being a good indicator is remains. > -Original Message- > From: Ross Gardler > Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 8:48 AM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache > NetBeans Incubator P

RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

he numbers, user numbers are irrelevant. If that were the metric of success for an open source project then Open Office would be thriving. Ross > -Original Message- > From: Emilian Bold [mailto:emilian.b...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 2:09 AM > To: genera

RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

utes/2015/board_minutes_2015_01_21.txt Ross > -Original Message- > From: m...@wadechandler.com [mailto:m...@wadechandler.com] On Behalf Of > Wade Chandler > Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 8:04 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans c

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

er, but also as the person ultimately responsible for paying such a budget request to the board). Ross --- Twitter: @rgardler From: Ted Dunning Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:04:34 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cos

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

Daniel, this is excellent. Thank you. When we brought AOO in we offset some costs, such as bandwidth, through our arrangement with SourceForge. Can we do the same here? (I imagine this has already been discussed, I'm behind of those threads, I'm just looking for a short summary). Shane, if the

RE: Incubation and GSOC

Really? In that case I need to apologies, as a mentor, I certainly didn't forward them. These new fangled email clients that know better than me what I need to read and what I don't. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Ulrich Stärk Sent: ‎2/‎

RE: Incubation and GSOC

http://community.apache.org/gsoc.html#prospective-asf-mentors-read-this -Original Message- From: Ed Cable [mailto:edca...@mifos.org] Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 11:09 AM To: d...@fineract.incubator.apache.org Cc: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Incubation and GSOC Greg an

RE: Request for advice on code donation

CCLA is optional for ASF -Original Message- From: Josh Elser [mailto:josh.el...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 12:34 PM To: d...@slider.incubator.apache.org Cc: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Request for advice on code donation https://github.com/apache/incubator-

RE: [IPMC Projects] may be in need of^w^w^w^w^ware looking for help!

Sure thing, now I'm on a real email here's the link on how to make folks aware of willingeness to help new community members... http://community.apache.org/guide-to-being-a-mentor.html Ross -Original Message- From: William A Rowe Jr [mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net] Sent: Monda

RE: [IPMC Projects] may be in need of^w^w^w^w^ware looking for help!

nk it's a good idea though. Assuming folks agree with this approach I guess that makes ComDev the right place. Ross Sent from my Windows Phone From: Roman Shaposhnik<mailto:ro...@shaposhnik.org> Sent: ‎1/‎10/‎2016 4:35 PM To: general@incubator.apac

RE: OK to distribute some GPL licensed build tools?

Who says its OK? Unless approved by VP Legal it's not OK. If there has been a documented decision to allow this then the legal policy docs need updating before we start updating any Incubator docs Sent from my Windows Phone From: Justin Mclean

RE: Concerted may be in need of help

uld not be interfering. Ross Sent from my Windows Phone From: Julian Hyde<mailto:jh...@apache.org> Sent: ‎1/‎9/‎2016 12:37 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: Concerted may be in need of help (Removing dev@conce

RE: Concerted may be in need of help

+1 Sent from my Windows Phone From: Roman Shaposhnik Sent: ‎1/‎8/‎2016 7:35 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: d...@concerted.incubator.apache.org;

[RESULTS] RE: [VOTE] Accept Fineract into Apache Incubator

The vote to accept Fineract into the incubator passed (12 +1 votes with plenty of IPMC member votes, no other votes cast) We’ll start the process of incubation. Ross From: Ross Gardler Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 1:22 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Accept Fineract

RE: [VOTE] Accept Fineract into Apache Incubator

+1 From: Ross Gardler Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 1:22 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Accept Fineract into Apache Incubator I would like to call a vote on accepting the Fineract project into the Apache Incubator. The proposal is pasted below and posted at http

[VOTE] Accept Fineract into Apache Incubator

[ ] -1 Do not accept Fineract because [your fully justified reason for objection] Thanks, Ross = Fineract Proposal = == Abstract == Fineract (\’fīn-,ə-ˌrakt\: A hypercube for digital financial services) is an open source system for core banking as a platform. Fineract provides a reliable

RE: [PORPOSAL] Fineract

For those who didn't work on the proposal I can assure you there is no confusion in this incoming community over who makes the decisions. I recommended the same model I advocate in the IPMC. The model we started with. Champion brings the project in, is responsible if problems arise but is nt ac

RE: [PORPOSAL] Fineract

mailto:general@incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: [PORPOSAL] Fineract On Sat, Dec 5, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > Nobody is turned away. Jedi mind tricks won't work on me Ross:) When someone says, "We are not seeking more." it is the same as being turned away. For the rest of

RE: [PORPOSAL] Fineract

s project. I imagine, if he had the time to offer, he'll become a committer quickly. The same will be true for anyone else who contributes. Ross Sent from my Windows Phone From: Tim Williams<mailto:william...@gmail.com> Sent: ‎12/‎5/‎2015 5:08

RE: [PORPOSAL] Fineract

he project please join the community as active participants in the code production and community building process. Those of you who know the three mentors know that your voice will have the proper weight within the community and in some cases that will be more than the mentors. Ross ---

RE: [PORPOSAL] Fineract

Andrew Dzakpasu (Musoni Systems) * Markus Geiss (The Mifos Initiative) * Sander van der Heijden (Musoni Systems) * Myrle Krantz (The Mifos Initiative) * Terence Monteiro (SanJose Foundation) * Adi Nayaran Raju (Conflux Technologies) * Nazeer Hussain Shaik (Conflux Technologies) == Sponsors

RE: [VOTE] Retire Ripple

+1 -Original Message- From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:mar...@rectangular.com] Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 8:54 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: [VOTE] Retire Ripple Greetings, The Ripple community has been discussing retirement on their dev list. https://na01.safelinks

RE: Ripple to be retired from the incubator?

Marvin I would love to accept your help in retiring the podling. I'll close out the trademark issue with the community in parallel. Thank you Ross -Original Message- From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:mar...@rectangular.com] Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 5:30 PM To: ge

RE: Ripple to be retired from the incubator?

Actually adding general@ for guidance on the process -Original Message- From: Ross Gardler [mailto:ross.gard...@microsoft.com] Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 3:21 PM To: d...@ripple.incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: Ripple to be retired from the incubator? Looks like there is consensus

RE: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Brock, I can assure you that's not Greg's style so I doubt you have anything to worry about. -Original Message- From: Brock Noland [mailto:br...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 9:54 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...) > On

RE: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

The suggestion is to add it to the proposal template - that's before incubation starts. -Original Message- From: Niall Pemberton [mailto:niall.pember...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 23, 2015 5:49 PM To: general-incubator Subject: Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...) On Mon,

RE: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

use a mix and that's the point of contention here, some people feel it is suboptimal (I'm one, but others disagree). The discussion is not whether CTR also uses RTC at points, I believe that is a given. Ross -Original Message- From: sa3r...@gmail.com [mailto:sa3r...@gma

RE: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

more people who follow that rule the more eyes there are on the commit. I trust my fellow community members to do the right thing. RTC provides no added value for me personally since the amount of work for *me* is the same - I need to review every commit I care about. Ross -Original Message-

RE: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

I agree, mostly, with your mail Stephen, but I wonder about the reference you make to "the mess of every commits". Do you really see that? If you do see it I suspect the project has a problem. In my experience reverts are rare. We prefer people improve what is there rather than revert what they

RE: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

be rejected. What I see is people discussing such changes, and providing psuedo code and then real code for review before committing to master. It saves time to get early review. Ross Sent from my Windows Phone From: Emmanuel Lécharny<mailto:elecha...@gmail.com>

RE: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning Sentry...)

Interesting, Todd, can you identify which of your three arguments for CTR are not present in RTC. Ross -Original Message- From: Todd Lipcon [mailto:t...@cloudera.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 11:23 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: RTC vs CTR (was: Concerning

RE: Apache Metrics, Not Apache Humans

t leads to the right decision for that community. Ross Sent from my Windows Phone From: Marko Rodriguez<mailto:okramma...@gmail.com> Sent: ‎11/‎17/‎2015 5:14 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: Apache Me

RE: Apache Metrics, Not Apache Humans

objection: community building is an art not a science, there is no "score" that can be placed upon a community. Ross -Original Message- From: Marko Rodriguez [mailto:okramma...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 10:20 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Apache

RE: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

Dennis makes a good point. Some to ago it became common to think of the diversity objective to become a minimum number of contributors from different orgs rather than an acceptance of new contributors views. Now we require a behavior pattern likely to lead to diversity. One is quantative (bad,

RE: [VOTE] Graduate REEF

+1 -Original Message- From: Chris Douglas [mailto:cdoug...@apache.org] Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 1:47 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [VOTE] Graduate REEF +1 -C On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Markus Weimer wrote: > This is the vote to decide if Apache REEF shoul

RE: Concerning Sentry: A disagreement over the Apache Way and graduation

There should be no recommendation for podlings. Mentors should guide the podling to making the right decision for their community by discussing the pros and cons of each model. The idea of a mentor bringing their preference, or worse the IPMC having a "default" is problematic. Sent from my Win

RE: How to get more mentors on podlings

is year I stepped in to help the project get beyond a deadlock. Judging by recent activities I might need to step up again. Ross -Original Message- From: Ted Dunning [mailto:ted.dunn...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 11:32 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: How t

RE: How to get more mentors on podlings

Yes, *find* - I certainly can't afford that autocorrect ;-) Ross -Original Message- From: Upayavira [mailto:u...@odoko.co.uk] Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2015 2:30 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: How to get more mentors on podlings I think you mean "find&

RE: How to get more mentors on podlings

I see this as the Champions role. You could ask for volunteers, and it will get you folks but you really want people who are invested. As a champion I consider it my job to fund such folks. Sent from my Windows Phone From: John D. Ament

RE: When podlings don't file a report

odlings don't file a report On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > Your reply is fine, except that your original question was about what > happens when “If it turns out that the Mentors have been reminding the > podling to file but nobody's followed through” &g

RE: When podlings don't file a report

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > This is one aspect that I feel needs fixing. Currently there are too many > people who "might" be responsible. What we need is someone who *is* > responsible. It's initially the mentors, but if (as per your original > q

RE: When podlings don't file a report

ads already looking at how to improve oversight. This is just one of the many symptoms of the problem. To your "shepherd" point below the term here in the IPMC is different to the term at the board level. Board shepherds *are* responsible for following up after board meet

RE: [graduation] Maturity model-based assessment of Groovy for its graduation

Absolutely should be voluntary. We don't need more red tape. We need better guidance. The model is good guidance. Individual volunteers should evaluate from their own perspective and work towards improving areas they feel attached to. That is, someone in the project from day one will not have t

RE: When podlings don't file a report

munity and a mentor is as responsible as any other community member. Ross -Original Message- From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:mar...@rectangular.com] Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 9:42 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: When podlings don't file a report Greets, This mon

RE: Possible process improvement?

Great suggestion, can you modify the templates? All ASF committers have write access to the comdev site via the ASF CMS. Only ComDev contributors have commit there, so you might want to ping d...@community.apache.org if your change gets missed for some reason. Ross -Original Message

RE: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

Further to Sam's suggestion and observations below see Suggestion 0.1.8 at http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorIssues2013#Suggestions -Original Message- From: sa3r...@gmail.com [mailto:sa3r...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sam Ruby Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 7:26 AM To: general@i

RE: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion

+1000 (though I would argue a single highly committed mentor is sufficient) -Original Message- From: Julian Hyde [mailto:jh...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 9:46 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Mentor disengagement - a suggestion It's not activity on the de

RE: [VOTE] Release Apache REEF 0.13.0-incubating (rc1)

+1 (based only on an IP validation) The community need to address the items below, but they are not blockers. Ross -Original Message- From: Mariia Mykhailova [mailto:mamyk...@microsoft.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 10:52 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: RE: [VOTE

RE: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html#proposal-template -Original Message- From: Andrew Bayer [mailto:andrew.ba...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 8:04 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings? Where

RE: A question: Is it alright to say no to potential podlings?

If a project has infra requirements that are not “standard” for the ASF then these should, IMHO, be uncovered by the champion/mentors prior to proposal. If missed there then the discuss phase should uncover them. These should then be discussed with the infra team prior to vote. Ross

RE: Incubation capacity

With respect to " I hope that we can manage that a bit by pushing to recognize common points of reference, move on to points difference and only then start discussing solutions." I remind everyone of a perfect starting point for this - perhaps we can focus on constructively updating http://wiki

RE: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

I said *better* not *more* -Original Message- From: Alan D. Cabrera [mailto:l...@toolazydogs.com] Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2015 2:34 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy > On Oct 9, 2015, at 8:36 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: > > Per

RE: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

I blogged on this topic some time ago - basically it is my opinion that if I am a good employee I would never try to contribute code to an Apache project that is not beneficial to the broader community. Such an action would be detrimental to her employers business. Consequently, there is no conf

RE: Require projects to have solid API docs

No. That’s not the role of the foundation. However, ensuring people contributing to the docs are recognized like any other contributor is the role of the foundation. Can you help contribute to such docs? Sent from Outlook Mail for Windows 10 phon

RE: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

No. Meaning that starting from a place of no-trust in an environment where trust is critical is wrong. Ross -Original Message- From: Pierre Smits [mailto:pierre.sm...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 2:26 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Mentor

RE: [DISCUSS] Mentor neutrality policy

d mentor activity. The goal is to catch the occasional problem case rather than put restrictions in place. I'm not sure how to do that though. I and others have made many suggestions over the years. They can be found here http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorIssues2013 (you might wan

RE: Should Apache VOTEs be in a first-come, first-serve queue?

+1 and given further comments from Tinkerpop community representatives I would say the mentors need to step up and explain what Apache is all about. Ross -Original Message- From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 8:49 AM To: Incubator

RE: Should Apache VOTEs be in a first-come, first-serve queue?

e and effort. I hope everyone who ever votes +1 on any release does so after doing the required IP audit. Anything less is doing you and Tinkerpop a disservice despite your lack of respect for the community approach to developing software that we advocate alongside strong IP management policies.

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   >