Hi,
Just catching up on this thread. Going back a bit.
>> #2 The #1 goal is achieved via mentorship. In fact mentorship is
>> not even required as the case of Zest (and hopeful Yetus soon) demonstrated.
Not to pick on Zest but a casual glance at the current source release shows it
contains a
n i.
>
> - Dennis
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 05:57
> To: Incubator General
> Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from
> the Apache Incubator)
&g
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015, at 07:06 PM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
> > That said, I have personally been in positions where I have seen IPMC
> > members ask - and even demand things at times - that I feel are
> > unreasonable requests for the podling
> >> From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Roman Shaposhnik
> >> Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 12:13 PM
> >> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite
> from th
Can you provide a pointer to a specific example of what you mean?
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Andrew Purtell
> wrote:
>
> > >
> >
> > In fact, in my opinion it leads to the very unfortunate side effect of
> IPMC
> > >
> > feeli
uot;
Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 9:12 AM
To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Subject: RE: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from
the Apache Incubator)
>As an immediate start to having a tool to support mentors and TLPs you
>might want to consider provi
> -Original Message-
> From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 05:57
> To: Incubator General
> Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from
> the Apache Incubator)
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
&g
General
Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the
Apache Incubator)
Hi Daniel,
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> On 2015-08-04 13:01, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>... IMO the Incubator PMC can very much own this checklist, and I
>
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015, at 12:23 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> It's hard to get the balance right between appropriate oversight and
> unwanted meddling.
No argument there. I'm unconvinced that a restructuring of the
IPMC/PPMC/Mentorship structure as it is today will solve that, though it
might push it ar
t between appropriate oversight and unwanted
meddling.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Joe Brockmeier<mailto:j...@zonker.net>
Sent: 8/4/2015 9:16 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015, at 07:06 PM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
> That said, I have personally been in positions where I have seen IPMC
> members ask - and even demand things at times - that I feel are
> unreasonable requests for the podling. The reason I do not challenge
> those is because I feel that t
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015, at 03:13 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 2, 2015, at 10:05 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> >> I've been waiting for a bout a week for other to chime in, but
> >> it seems that nobody has so I'll repeat my questi
eneral@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the
Apache Incubator)
On 2015-08-04 13:01, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> ...Which woul
Hi Daniel,
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:15 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> On 2015-08-04 13:01, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>... IMO the Incubator PMC can very much own this checklist, and I
>> volunteer to contribute to creating it...
> If interested, I would very much like to work with you on perhaps tu
On 2015-08-04 13:01, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
...Which would be totally fine and gets us back to the point Daniel and I were
discussing: a release compliance team (horrible name, I know) as part of ASF
IMO it's not a team that's n
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:33 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> ...Which would be totally fine and gets us back to the point Daniel and I were
> discussing: a release compliance team (horrible name, I know) as part of
> ASF
IMO it's not a team that's needed, just a clear and "modular" release chec
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
> >
>
> In fact, in my opinion it leads to the very unfortunate side effect of IPMC
> >
> feeling in need to justify why it exists by micromanaging podlings.
>
> I've been through incubation as a mentor on Phoenix, Nifi, and now getting
>
m] On Behalf Of Roman
Shaposhnik
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 12:13 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the
Apache Incubator)
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015, at 10:05 PM, Roman
>
In fact, in my opinion it leads to the very unfortunate side effect of IPMC
>
feeling in need to justify why it exists by micromanaging podlings.
I've been through incubation as a mentor on Phoenix, Nifi, and now getting
up to speed on Trafodion, I have not seen micromanagement of podlings.
be very
>> true at IPMC level today."
>>
>> +1000
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman
>> Shaposhnik
>> Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 12:13 PM
>> To: general@incubator
On 03.08.2015 18:36, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> It's not the central Incubator folks like our regular release
> reviewers and report contributors who invent these extra criteria
Sorry but this has to be said: I see folks on this list inventing policy
(or rather, confusing opinion and policy) all the
On 2015-08-03 21:13, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
Yup. I believe this to be an unfortunate (at least from my standpoint)
but and extremely fair observation.
As far as I'm concerned the issue of R&Rs of IPMC is in a state of a
stalemate right now. We clearly have a "everything's fine lets just
add m
-
> From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman
> Shaposhnik
> Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 12:13 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the
> Apache Incubator)
>
> On Mon,
al Message-
From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman
Shaposhnik
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 12:13 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the
Apache Incubator)
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:44 AM, J
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2015, at 10:05 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> I've been waiting for a bout a week for other to chime in, but
>> it seems that nobody has so I'll repeat my question as of
>> a week ago: what would be the effective way to change
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:05 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> ...who else thinks the movement towards empowering
>> PPMCs and making IPMC very much like the board makes sense?...
>
> How is that different from the status quo where a podli
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 7:18 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> I wonder how much of the silence is a notion of "I don't want to be
> accountable if something goes wrong in this podling."
Right, but that same concern could be applied to every single TLP
and yet the board seems to do the right thing with t
+1
-Original Message-
From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:mar...@rectangular.com]
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 09:37
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the
Apache Incubator)
[ ... ]
It's not the central Incubator
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:05 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
>> wrote:
>> > ...who else thinks the movement towards empowering
>> > PPMCs and making IPMC very much like the board makes
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:05 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
> > ...who else thinks the movement towards empowering
> > PPMCs and making IPMC very much like the board makes sense?...
>
> How is that different from the status quo where a
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015, at 10:05 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> I've been waiting for a bout a week for other to chime in, but
> it seems that nobody has so I'll repeat my question as of
> a week ago: what would be the effective way to change the
> status quo around IPMC an make it more board like?
>
On 2015-08-03 09:37, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:05 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
...who else thinks the movement towards empowering
PPMCs and making IPMC very much like the board makes sense?...
How is that different from the status quo where a podling with active
ment
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:05 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> ...who else thinks the movement towards empowering
> PPMCs and making IPMC very much like the board makes sense?...
How is that different from the status quo where a podling with active
mentors can have their releases +1ed by their mentors
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> what would be the effective way to change the
> status quo around IPMC an make it more board like?
The Board works very hard to provide thorough review of the reports it
receives. While IPMC review of podling reports is better than it use
on proper oversight from mentors and the IPMC, I'm comfortable
> with this approach because I never vote +1 without having done due
> diligence on the release - I trust others do the same).
> >
> >
> > Ross
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > Fro
ble with this
> approach because I never vote +1 without having done due diligence on the
> release - I trust others do the same).
>
>
> Ross
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us]
> Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 6:05 PM
> To: genera
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 09:08PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 29.07.2015 19:51, Greg Stein wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 2015 12:45 PM, "Konstantin Boudnik" wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:25PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> >>> On Jul 29, 2015 11:37 AM, "Branko Čibej" wrote:
> On 29.07.2015 18:14, Joe Bro
On 29.07.2015 19:51, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2015 12:45 PM, "Konstantin Boudnik" wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:25PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> On Jul 29, 2015 11:37 AM, "Branko Čibej" wrote:
On 29.07.2015 18:14, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015, at 03:19 AM, Branko
On 29.07.2015 19:25, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2015 11:37 AM, "Branko Čibej" wrote:
>> On 29.07.2015 18:14, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015, at 03:19 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
Personally I'm not too happy with how this community tracks issues, but
hey, if it works for t
On Jul 29, 2015 12:45 PM, "Konstantin Boudnik" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:25PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> > On Jul 29, 2015 11:37 AM, "Branko Čibej" wrote:
> > >
> > > On 29.07.2015 18:14, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015, at 03:19 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > > >> Personall
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:25PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2015 11:37 AM, "Branko Čibej" wrote:
> >
> > On 29.07.2015 18:14, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015, at 03:19 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > >> Personally I'm not too happy with how this community tracks issues, but
> > >>
On Jul 29, 2015 11:37 AM, "Branko Čibej" wrote:
>
> On 29.07.2015 18:14, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015, at 03:19 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> >> Personally I'm not too happy with how this community tracks issues, but
> >> hey, if it works for them, why fix it? It'll be a fine day whe
On 29.07.2015 18:14, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015, at 03:19 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> Personally I'm not too happy with how this community tracks issues, but
>> hey, if it works for them, why fix it? It'll be a fine day when the IPMC
>> starts telling podlings how their development
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015, at 03:19 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Personally I'm not too happy with how this community tracks issues, but
> hey, if it works for them, why fix it? It'll be a fine day when the IPMC
> starts telling podlings how their development workflow should look like.
Does "works for the
15 6:05 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the
Apache Incubator)
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> The proposed need to announce release votes on the IPMC list is how things
> were when the in
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> The proposed need to announce release votes on the IPMC list is how things
> were when the incubator was created. The need for IPMC to control the process
> is another case of the IPMC over-reaching itself and in so doing causing
> problems
SCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the
Apache Incubator)
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 01:38PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 26.07.2015 10:56, jan i wrote:
> > On 26 July 2015 at 10:40, Justin Mclean wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>> About 40% of the last 100 threads on g
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 01:38PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 26.07.2015 10:56, jan i wrote:
> > On 26 July 2015 at 10:40, Justin Mclean wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>> About 40% of the last 100 threads on general@ is "vote release"... Cut
> >> that
> >>> away is a good start in reforming the Incubator
On 2015-07-27 01:20, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
I'd like to raise a somewhat orthogonal point. Mainly the fact that our
obsession with doing good work with podlings could, very well, be
obscuring a much more important issues. And given how limited
our resources of eyeballs looking at releases are
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
>
>
> On 2015-07-26 10:56, jan i wrote:
>>
>> No that is an important service, on the other hand I also agree that the
>> mentors should be guiding/running the podlings not general@
>>
>> Maybe we can find some middle ground.
>> - Mentors "run"
Hi Daniel
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> Apologies in advance for slightly crossing threads here.
I'll try to keep you straight in replying to the parts that belong to
this thread ;-)
> But let's get some facts straight first:
> - The champion of the project created a DI
On 2015-07-26 10:56, jan i wrote:
No that is an important service, on the other hand I also agree that the
mentors should be guiding/running the podlings not general@
Maybe we can find some middle ground.
- Mentors "run" the podlings, can accept releases etc.
- Mentors decide when a podlng can
David, I think we've been there before a few month ago.
In my view, you're articulating collective (IPMC) vs.
personal (mentors) responsibility.
IIRC, we came to be on different sides of that divide.
I'll repeat again what I said in that discussion: I like
the mentor responsibility model a LOT fo
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 9:50 AM, toki wrote:
>
>
> On 07/26/2015 04:35 PM, jan i wrote:
>
>> unless we don't trust the mentors
>
> It isn't a case of not trusting the mentors, but rather, the ease with
> which something can be accidentally overlooked.
>
> Rephrased. The mentor is too close to the
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 1:56 AM, jan i wrote:
> No that is an important service, on the other hand I also agree that the
> mentors should be guiding/running the podlings not general@
>
> Maybe we can find some middle ground.
> - Mentors "run" the podlings, can accept releases etc.
> - Mentors deci
Windows Phone
From: David Nalley<mailto:da...@gnsa.us>
Sent: 7/26/2015 12:36 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the
Apache Incubator)
Empowe
Since I am relatively new to the Incubator (given that it turns 13 in
just 2½ month), I will ask a question that may have been answered in the
earlier years:
Have we given any thought to some sort of mentor rotation policy?
One could argue that what we especially lack right now is the 'outside
to:humbed...@apache.org>
Sent: 7/26/2015 1:55 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator
Apologies in advance for slightly crossing threads here.
Even though I have already sent quite a lot of emails
alley<mailto:da...@gnsa.us>
Sent: 7/26/2015 12:36 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the
Apache Incubator)
>
> Empower the Mentors to run the podlings, teach the newco
ion? (a genuine
question with no accusation intended)
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Daniel Gruno<mailto:humbed...@apache.org>
Sent: 7/26/2015 1:55 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Grad
Apologies in advance for slightly crossing threads here.
Even though I have already sent quite a lot of emails on this subject
(12 over the past week!), I feel I must reply to some of the concerns
and opinions expressed in the last few emails. I do not like it when
concerns are answered with t
I think my own experience as a mentor over recent years is useful here. I
thought I understood what was necessary for apache releases when, in fact, I
understood release requirements for releases like the ones I had previously
seen.
The wider by shepherds and by the general votes was a pain
>
> Empower the Mentors to run the podlings, teach the newcomers and bring it
> to TLP.
>
As a mentor of podlings, I dislike the above idea.
Mentors get busy, they miss things, sometimes big things. Sometimes
things that are obvious to an outsider are missed by mentors who don't
catch it. I've ce
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 1:20 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> About 40% of the last 100 threads on general@ is "vote release"...
>> Cut that away is a good start in reforming the Incubator…
Many of those vote threads are very high quality and valuable.
Successful vote threads are short: a few +1
On 07/26/2015 04:35 PM, jan i wrote:
> unless we don't trust the mentors
It isn't a case of not trusting the mentors, but rather, the ease with
which something can be accidentally overlooked.
Rephrased. The mentor is too close to the project, to see all of the
errors in the project.
jonathon
ral@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the
Apache Incubator)
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> The only downside of this proposal is that it assumes that every podling
> has at least three active (!) mentors.
On Sunday, July 26, 2015, Don Bosco Durai wrote:
> My only concern is now the mentor(s) need to check everything before
> approving. In my experience, during the early stages of the releases, lot
> of the license, naming, release location, etc. related issues were
> identified during the approval
My only concern is now the mentor(s) need to check everything before
approving. In my experience, during the early stages of the releases, lot
of the license, naming, release location, etc. related issues were
identified during the approval in the general@ list. Which were very
helpful to us.
Know
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> The only downside of this proposal is that it assumes that every podling
> has at least three active (!) mentors.
No, I don't necessarily mean that you need 3 mentors either. One active
mentor would be fine with me. Empower the podling to st
On 26.07.2015 10:56, jan i wrote:
> On 26 July 2015 at 10:40, Justin Mclean wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> About 40% of the last 100 threads on general@ is "vote release"... Cut
>> that
>>> away is a good start in reforming the Incubator…
>> IMO Which provides a valuable service in showing poddlings on ho
On 26 July 2015 at 10:40, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > About 40% of the last 100 threads on general@ is "vote release"... Cut
> that
> > away is a good start in reforming the Incubator…
>
> IMO Which provides a valuable service in showing poddlings on how to make
> good releases. Do we want t
Hi,
> About 40% of the last 100 threads on general@ is "vote release"... Cut that
> away is a good start in reforming the Incubator…
IMO Which provides a valuable service in showing poddlings on how to make good
releases. Do we want to get rid of that?
Thanks,
Justin
-
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
>#2 The #1 goal is achieved via mentorship. In fact mentorship is
> not even required
> as the case of Zest (and hopeful Yetus soon) demonstrated.
>#3 When mentorship is required IPMC entrusts the mentors to guide
> the proj
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 2:10 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 24.07.2015 21:00, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>> An an active mentor of the podling I do support the graduation. The last, to
>> my knowledge, concern expressed was about insufficient open discussions of
>> the
>> new features on the dev@ an
rojects. Only the mentors and active project community members can
>> make this judgement.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ross
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Konstantin Boudnik [mailto:c...@boudnik.org]
>> Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 6:27 PM
>> To
among other things) what diversity means and how it is built in
> Apache projects. Only the mentors and active project community members can
> make this judgement.
>
> Thanks,
> Ross
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Konstantin Boudnik [mailto:c...@boudnik.org]
> Sen
Le 23/07/2015 21:19, Ted Dunning a écrit :
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 09:29AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 11:20 PM, Konstantin Boudnik
wrote:
Looks like now we can put "git branch deletion data loss" fiction to
rest.
e projects. Only the mentors and active project community members can make
this judgement.
Thanks,
Ross
-Original Message-
From: Konstantin Boudnik [mailto:c...@boudnik.org]
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 6:27 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from
Congratulation - this is the longest [DISCUSS] thread on a podling graduation
in the last 4 years (since ACE). Musta be some sort of record or something!
Cos
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 04:36PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> Hello Apache Incubator,
>
> At the suggestion of our mentors the Ignite commun
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
> > Obviously it's good practice to post the outcome of offline chats to the
> > dev@ list for further discussion. On the other hand, I've not seen any
> > major feature appear in the Ign
// Putting my Ignite mentor hat on
I apologies for not chiming in on this thread earlier.
I am at OSCON and my connectivity is extremely
limited. Thus, I'd like to constrain myself to highly
actionable questions on this thread. Which is:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>> Obv
On 24.07.2015 04:31, Ted Dunning wrote:
>> There's a bit of an impedance mismatch here, I agree. I insist that Jira
>> is not relevant history.
>
> You may or may not claim that, but the fact that issue tracking is required
> to be on Apache controlled resources indicates a somewhat different
> res
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 07:31PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Branko,
>
> Let me preface this by my thought that I feel that the JIRA's are a
> valuable organizational tool in that I should be able to find the
> information on a particular issue there. The Hadoop or Zookeeper JIRA's,
> for instance, are
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 03:25AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 23.07.2015 23:42, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > I think it had more caustic properties. Or the correct spelling is cos'tic?
> >
> > I never could tell them apart...
>
> Alright, that's enough. From senseless bean-counting to playground
> fi
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > As far as off-list discussions are concerned, this is still a very big
> > issue for me. Off-list discussions and design work is not forbidden, but
> > it must be reflected back to the mailing list.
>
> I agree in principle but have to obj
I don't think that such implementation requires hand-holding either.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 23.07.2015 18:26, Ted Dunning wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> >
> Concerns have been raised about the people behind the actual
Branko,
Let me preface this by my thought that I feel that the JIRA's are a
valuable organizational tool in that I should be able to find the
information on a particular issue there. The Hadoop or Zookeeper JIRA's,
for instance, are often models of this. Issues are discussed, reviewed,
dissected
On 24.07.2015 04:11, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 24.07.2015 03:41, Daniel Gruno wrote:
>> On 07/24/2015 03:22 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> On 24.07.2015 01:25, Valentin Kulichenko wrote:
I do agree that our Jira handling could be better and believe that
community has already responded to thes
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
> If after this lengthy thread, Ignite's Mentors remain persuaded that
> it's time to graduate, I hope that others will weigh that carefully.
>
This is a typically wise comment from Marvin. The mentors judgement does
deserve strong consid
On 23.07.2015 18:26, Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:19 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
Concerns have been raised about the people behind the actual commits,
>> that
seems to be left open ?
>>> I am not sure about this one: why there's a concern that people behind
>> commits
>>
On 24.07.2015 03:41, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> On 07/24/2015 03:22 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 24.07.2015 01:25, Valentin Kulichenko wrote:
>>> I do agree that our Jira handling could be better and believe that
>>> community has already responded to these discussions and addressed some of
>>> the rai
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Alright, that's enough. From senseless bean-counting to playground
> fights, this thread is becoming a bit off-putting.
Thanks for answering so many questions at length, Brane.
I think these graduation discussions on general@incubator are m
On 07/24/2015 03:22 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 24.07.2015 01:25, Valentin Kulichenko wrote:
>> I do agree that our Jira handling could be better and believe that
>> community has already responded to these discussions and addressed some of
>> the raised concerns. The truth is that so far many Jir
On 23.07.2015 23:42, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> I think it had more caustic properties. Or the correct spelling is cos'tic?
>
> I never could tell them apart...
Alright, that's enough. From senseless bean-counting to playground
fights, this thread is becoming a bit off-putting.
-- Brane
> On T
On 24.07.2015 01:25, Valentin Kulichenko wrote:
> I do agree that our Jira handling could be better and believe that
> community has already responded to these discussions and addressed some of
> the raised concerns. The truth is that so far many Jira discussions have
> happened on the dev list, in
On 24.07.2015 00:03, Pierre Smits wrote:
> And we also have keep in mind that the project not only there for those
> with privileges. Focus on that subset of the community isn't building
> healthy, successful projects.
This is the second time on this thread that you've implied that there
are peopl
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 4:25 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do all issues get discussed on the dev list? I would say we are very close
> to it. Yes, of course, there is some Skype communication given that the
> project is very complex and the team is distributed.
Hi Ted,
I think the main question here, is whether Ignite community fully following
the Apache Way, or in other words has an active meritocratic community
which is open and makes it easy for people to join.
In my opinion, absolutely Yes.
The project guidelines are fully documented on the website
> On Jul 23, 2015, at 6:23 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
>
> But before we go down that path I want to ask folks who have expressed factual
> concerns to chime in once more and confirm which of those weren't addressed
> yet, if possible.
I completely agree. Enumerating the remaining, unaddresse
Taylor,
I agree with you - there's no rush in the graduating of course - the community
and the mentors were in the consensus that the project is ready for it.
However some of the points that lead to the perpetuation of the thread were
obvious non sequitur, like the "63%" one. The others were very
1 - 100 of 189 matches
Mail list logo
