I know that I, and I think that Marvin, got a bit distracted by their
exact choice of wording. I join him in agreeing with you that the
people proposing a podling should be entitled, no, encouraged, to
control their list of initial collaborators. Also note the other email
in this thread about wanti
am
uncomfortable with the exclusivity of language like "The initial
committers will be made up exclusively from existing contributors".)
seemed pretty final. If that was not the intention then all is good.
I'm certainly in agreement that open enrollment should be an option
not a requi
there must have been a serious failure of communication between us if
think I'd object to that. :\
So long as something actually gets done to curtail open enrollment and we
aren't still talking about how "piling on" is a problem in 2018, my primary
objective in s
On 28 May 2012 13:22, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
...
>> At a minimum, I think it would be wise for the incubator documentation
>> to tell new projects to announce a policy as part of their proposal,
>> so that others do not make the same mistake. That announcement could
>> be anything from "The init
MO, these guidelines are flawed -- though possibly through imprecise language
rather than intent. Encouraging people to introduce themselves on the public
list puts podling candidates in the awkward position of having to turn people
away. We've just seen how well that work out, no? :P
Skep
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> On May 27, 2012 1:55 PM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>> OK, then how about a place for people to sign up for the podling dev list
>> in advance?
>
> Sure, but to what end?
To welcome people on board, rather than exclude them with explicit lan
On 28 May 2012 09:30, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:06 AM, Josh Wills wrote:
>> ...At a minimum, I think it would be wise for the incubator documentation
>> to tell new projects to announce a policy as part of their proposal,
>> so that others do not make the same mistak
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:06 AM, Josh Wills wrote:
> ...At a minimum, I think it would be wise for the incubator documentation
> to tell new projects to announce a policy as part of their proposal,
> so that others do not make the same mistake. That announcement could
> be anything from "The init
Ross,
I can see why my 'sandbag' approach makes you uncomfortable. I've
suggested it once or twice when a proposed podling had a lot of
interested parties already involved. This is a two-edged situation. On
the one hand, instant size and diversity. On the other hand, that may
represent the pool of
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Jakob Homan wrote:
>> The "open enrollment" period has historically been controversial -- Crunch is
>> not the first project to wrestle with it.
>
> Just to re-iterate, the issue with Crunch was not whether or not that
> group dec
On May 27, 2012 1:55 PM, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>
> >> * Incubation proposals should have separate sections for "Initial
> >>Committers" and "Initial PPMC Members".
> >
> > Too much hierarchy, the ASF is flat. This is hard to unde
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
>> * Incubation proposals should have separate sections for "Initial
>> Committers" and "Initial PPMC Members".
>
> Too much hierarchy, the ASF is flat. This is hard to understand if we
> introduce layers to incubation.
Well, now *I'm* co
or they don't (show the community how to build and recognise
merit). I don't like even mentors being given commit status without merit
(remember merit is not transferable).
I'm not sure where this open enrollment thing came from, but I've never
liked like it. It made sense o
> The "open enrollment" period has historically been controversial -- Crunch is
> not the first project to wrestle with it.
Just to re-iterate, the issue with Crunch was not whether or not that
group decided to have an open enrollment or not. The issue was that
the announced po
butors.
Adding full PPMC members during the informal "open enrollment" period prior to
the VOTE on entering incubation limits the number of times a PPMC gets to go
through this invigorating experience. Perhaps that implies that the Incubator
should actively discourage open enrollment!
15 matches
Mail list logo
