On Feb 13, 2008, at 1:38 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Feb 13, 2008 1:09 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
... In projects where commit is handed out with ease, and that
commit is
never used, at some point it should be reviewed (and this should
happen
BEFORE gradua
On Feb 13, 2008 1:09 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>... In projects where commit is handed out with ease, and that commit is
> never used, at some point it should be reviewed (and this should happen
> BEFORE graduation, as a precondition of graduation, not as a trigger
> upon
Hi Bill,
On Feb 13, 2008, at 4:09 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
In projects where commit is handed out with ease, and that commit is
never used, at some point it should be reviewed (and this should
happen
BEFORE graduation, as a precondition of graduation, not as a trigger
upon graduation).
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Tuesday 12 February 2008 02:35, Craig L Russell wrote:
The difference is that committers in a TLP have been granted this
privilege based on their merit, not just by updating a wiki page
saying that they're interested.
Actually, if/where this is the case, it is not p
On Tuesday 12 February 2008 02:35, Craig L Russell wrote:
> The difference is that committers in a TLP have been granted this
> privilege based on their merit, not just by updating a wiki page
> saying that they're interested.
Actually, if/where this is the case, it is not proper. I want to on
On Feb 12, 2008, at 3:01 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Craig L Russell wrote:
On Feb 11, 2008, at 8:59 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
This is almost the exact same issue with a podling; if a user
never actually
participates, as the project graduates should they remain a
committer?
The
Craig L Russell wrote:
On Feb 11, 2008, at 8:59 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
This is almost the exact same issue with a podling; if a user never actually
participates, as the project graduates should they remain a committer?
The difference is that committers in a TLP have been granted thi
On Feb 11, 2008, at 8:59 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Monday 04 February 2008 04:11, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
STM that something along these lines would be a more lightweight but
equally effective process. we could ask the PPMC if it's pruned
inactive committer
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Monday 04 February 2008 04:11, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
STM that something along these lines would be a more lightweight but
equally effective process. we could ask the PPMC if it's pruned
inactive committers from the graudation list.
Personally, I don't see a diff
On Monday 04 February 2008 04:11, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> STM that something along these lines would be a more lightweight but
> equally effective process. we could ask the PPMC if it's pruned
> inactive committers from the graudation list.
Personally, I don't see a difference between inact
On Feb 3, 2008 9:11 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2008 7:47 PM, Filip at Apache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ...Make it part of the graduation for the contributors in the podling to
> > decide if they want to continue or not. the folks who have made the
> > po
On Feb 3, 2008 7:47 PM, Filip at Apache <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 2008 7:36 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> ...Craig has a good point - maybe that 'pruning' process, to the
> >> extent it's appropriate, should happen befor
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Feb 3, 2008 7:36 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...Craig has a good point - maybe that 'pruning' process, to the
extent it's appropriate, should happen before they start the actual
graduation process?
The question is how, and it's something
> > ...Craig has a good point - maybe that 'pruning' process, to the
> > extent it's appropriate, should happen before they start the actual
> > graduation process?
> >
> > The question is how, and it's something no established project has
> > ever figured out, nevermind our podlings :)...
>
> Henc
On Feb 3, 2008 7:36 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...Craig has a good point - maybe that 'pruning' process, to the
> extent it's appropriate, should happen before they start the actual
> graduation process?
>
> The question is how, and it's something no established project
Filip's point - and I tend to agree, is that we have quite a few
committers in many podling ideas who never translate into actual
contributors. Maybe the idea excited them, but other things caught
their attention. Maybe they were an original contributor to the
incoming codebase, but over the cou
There are some podlings that are managing themselves well and have no
inactive committers. These podlings should not have to undergo an
artificial process in order to graduate.
Other podlings that have a bunch of inactive committers might find it
necessary to go through a pruning process at
I'd vote -1, if a project graduates, it does so cause the committer
community is healthy and works well together, and all the other factors.
I don't see any reason why a community should have to be re-elected. It
just doesn't make sense. Graduation out of incubator should not be a
popularity con
Hi,
Following up (finally) on the community diversity discussion of last
December [1], I propose to re-elect podling committers before a
project graduates.
If we agree, I'll start a vote to add the following text after the
"Graduation Process" title at
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduatio
19 matches
Mail list logo
