On Thursday 01 November 2007 01:26, Craig L Russell wrote:
> And I certainly wouldn't want to see an arbitrary cutoff of
> prospective Apache committers just because of their affiliation.
Agree, especially if there has been a large set of folks working on the
codebase that is on the way in. So,
On Oct 31, 2007 2:45 PM, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthieu Riou wrote:
>
> > IMHO 3 legally independent committers can be very hard requirement,
> > especially for small sized project.
>
> How hard is it for users when the company paying them all abandons the
> project, and we
On 10/31/07, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 30, 2007, at 11:58 PM, Matthieu Riou wrote:
>
> > "there are at least 3 legally independent committers and there is no
> > single
> > company or entity that is vital to the success of the project"
>
> What does legally independent m
Matthieu Riou wrote:
> IMHO 3 legally independent committers can be very hard requirement,
> especially for small sized project.
How hard is it for users when the company paying them all abandons the
project, and we don't have enough mass and diversity for it to continue?
And that is just one eff
Hi,
On Oct 31, 2007, at 1:42 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Another thing that worries me a bit is projects coming in with a large
(N=more than 3 or 5?) number of committers from the same organization,
especially people who have no previous Apache or open source committer
experience. Do we want
On 10/31/07, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...I just don't think that placing limits on new committers who are nominated
> by merit during incubation is right
Totally agreed, committers nominated during incubation are subject to
the normal ASF "filters" so there's no problem wit
On 10/30/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Matthieu Riou wrote:
> > On 10/30/07, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Oct 30, 2007, at 11:58 PM, Matthieu Riou wrote:
> >>
> >>> "there are at least 3 legally independent committers and there is no
> single
> >>>
On Oct 31, 2007, at 8:38 AM, Paul Fremantle wrote:
Bertrand
Sorry - I misunderstood your point. I would be very happy to limit the
number of INITIAL committers! Yes +1.
If it makes sense to do so, then +1. But to do so just to
create a mistaken impression that the podling is, *at this partic
Bertrand
Sorry - I misunderstood your point. I would be very happy to limit the
number of INITIAL committers! Yes +1.
I just don't think that placing limits on new committers who are nominated
by merit during incubation is right.
Paul
On 10/31/07, Bertrand Delacretaz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
On 10/31/07, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...if
> we explicitly try to *limit* participation in a project then we are doing
> two things:
> 1. Discouraging involvement - the opposite of the aim of the incubator
> 2. Ruling out meritocracy - making it harder for some people to become
>
> Another thing that worries me a bit is projects coming in with a large
> (N=more than 3 or 5?) number of committers from the same organization,
> especially people who have no previous Apache or open source committer
> experience. Do we want to set a limit on N, to give the project more
> chanc
On Wednesday 31 October 2007 12:30, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> I know on Geronimo, and i suspect other projects as well,
> that there have been many times that people that worked for the same
> company voted differently so I don't think its totally pointless but I
> understand the concern.
I wou
On Wednesday 31 October 2007 16:42, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Another thing that worries me a bit is projects coming in with a large
> (N=more than 3 or 5?) number of committers from the same organization,
> especially people who have no previous Apache or open source committer
> experience.
I
On 10/31/07, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...the more important issue is the Incubator PMC's
> understanding of the community as they've conducted themselves and the
> iPMC's collective view on the project's viability going forward
Agreed, but currently as an IPMC member I have
Matthieu Riou wrote:
On 10/30/07, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 30, 2007, at 11:58 PM, Matthieu Riou wrote:
"there are at least 3 legally independent committers and there is no single
company or entity that is vital to the success of the project"
What does legally independe
On 10/30/07, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 30, 2007, at 11:58 PM, Matthieu Riou wrote:
>
> > "there are at least 3 legally independent committers and there is no
> > single
> > company or entity that is vital to the success of the project"
>
> What does legally independent m
On Oct 30, 2007, at 11:16 PM, Erik Abele wrote:
Well, usually our voting guidelines require three +1 etc. so for
example having only three committers from a single company makes
voting kind of pointless :-)
Perhaps. I know on Geronimo, and i suspect other projects as well,
that there
On Oct 30, 2007, at 11:58 PM, Matthieu Riou wrote:
"there are at least 3 legally independent committers and there is no
single
company or entity that is vital to the success of the project"
What does legally independent mean? Not paid by the same company to
work on a project? I'd be ok
On 10/30/07, Erik Abele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> So the absolute minimum should be three committers with at least two
> different entities behind them (e.g. two companies, or at least one
> independent, etc.) - OTOH I think the current rules outlined at [1]
> are perfectly fine.
I'd be f
On 31.10.2007, at 03:54, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
I didn't see a thread get started on this topic yet but I've been
mulling this over for a bit so perhaps we can continue the
discussion in this thread?
I'm not sure that there should be a hard requirement for 3, 5 or n
unique committers. As a
I didn't see a thread get started on this topic yet but I've been
mulling this over for a bit so perhaps we can continue the discussion
in this thread?
I'm not sure that there should be a hard requirement for 3, 5 or n
unique committers. As a guideline I think three is a good working
num
On 10/21/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> > My feeling is that the Incubator PMC needs to clarify our diversity
> > requirements, so waiting a bit is probably a good thing.
>
> "Our" being whom? The ASF as a whole is what I hope the answer is, since
>
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> My feeling is that the Incubator PMC needs to clarify our diversity
> requirements, so waiting a bit is probably a good thing.
"Our" being whom? The ASF as a whole is what I hope the answer is, since
otherwise it would be some artificial Incubation requirement, and
23 matches
Mail list logo
