Re: pTLP process amendments

2015-03-02 Thread Roman Shaposhnik
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 2:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Greg Stein wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz >>>...The Incubator PMC might not have a >>> formal say in pTLP creation, but there's significant work that happens >>> before th

Re: pTLP process amendments

2015-03-02 Thread Greg Stein
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:11 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz < > bdelacre...@apache.org> > >>...The Incubator PMC might not have a > >> formal say in pTLP creation, but there's significant

Re: pTLP process amendments

2015-03-02 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz >>...The Incubator PMC might not have a >> formal say in pTLP creation, but there's significant work that happens >> before that, collaboratively and in public. > > That isn't the IPMC. You're

Re: pTLP process amendments

2015-03-02 Thread Greg Stein
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz < > bdelacre...@apache.org> > > wrote: > >> ...the steps that lead to the board voting on the pTLP > >> creation resolution are

Re: pTLP process amendments

2015-03-02 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote: >> ...the steps that lead to the board voting on the pTLP >> creation resolution are IMO best handled by the Incubator PMC, as they >> are fairly similar to the creation of a podling.

Re: pTLP process amendments

2015-03-02 Thread Greg Stein
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) > wrote: > > ...either this pTLP idea is independent of the IPMC. Or it is not > > I think it is actually in between ;-) > > While the pTLP itself, once created by the boa

Re: pTLP process amendments

2015-03-02 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > ...either this pTLP idea is independent of the IPMC. Or it is not I think it is actually in between ;-) While the pTLP itself, once created by the board, is independent of the Incubator PMC, the steps that lead to the board

RE: pTLP process amendments

2015-03-01 Thread Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
; Sent: ‎3/‎1/‎2015 6:38 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: pTLP process amendments Marvin, I think the IPMC doesn't need to do anything, and instead the dissolution of Incubator's duties are put into the Board Resolution, just as th

Re: pTLP process amendments

2015-03-01 Thread Niclas Hedhman
Marvin, I think the IPMC doesn't need to do anything, and instead the dissolution of Incubator's duties are put into the Board Resolution, just as they are with the normal graduation resolution. So, from the Incubator's point of view, there is no effort, podling "disappears" and the pTLP is expect

Re: pTLP process amendments

2015-03-01 Thread Marvin Humphrey
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Greg Stein wrote: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:08 AM, Marvin Humphrey > wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Niclas Hedhman >> wrote: >> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:27 PM, jan i wrote: >> >> The proposal only refer to new projects entering Apache, would

Re: pTLP process amendments

2015-02-26 Thread Greg Stein
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 7:08 AM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Niclas Hedhman > wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:27 PM, jan i wrote: > >> The proposal only refer to new projects entering Apache, would it be > worth > >> while to consider a way for projects that e

Re: pTLP process amendments

2015-02-25 Thread Marvin Humphrey
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:27 PM, jan i wrote: >> The proposal only refer to new projects entering Apache, would it be worth >> while to consider a way for projects that entered Incubator recently and >> has enough (whatever that is) asf me

Re: pTLP process amendments

2015-02-25 Thread Niclas Hedhman
On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:27 PM, jan i wrote: > The proposal only refer to new projects entering Apache, would it be worth > while to consider a way for projects that entered Incubator recently and > has enough (whatever that is) asf members as committers ? That is a discussion for perhaps the I

Re: pTLP process amendments

2015-02-25 Thread jan i
On Wednesday, February 25, 2015, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > 3.7 --> That is not default for TLPs, as only PMC members subscribe to > private@ > > 3.8 --> Follow TLP recommendations and guidelines. > > 3.9 --> Follow TLP recommendations and guidelines. > > i.e. what is now written in 3.11 will cover

Re: pTLP process amendments

2015-02-25 Thread Niclas Hedhman
3.7 --> That is not default for TLPs, as only PMC members subscribe to private@ 3.8 --> Follow TLP recommendations and guidelines. 3.9 --> Follow TLP recommendations and guidelines. i.e. what is now written in 3.11 will cover these three points and can be removed. On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 4:18

Re: pTLP process amendments

2015-02-25 Thread Roman Shaposhnik
Hi Niclas! First of all: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-9195 Hopefully INFRA will respond soon so we can all collaborate on the content. At this point I've started the documentation to the level of details currently on Incubator pages. On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Niclas Hedhman

Re: pTLP process amendments

2015-02-24 Thread Greg Stein
This is fantastic. Thanks you, Niclas! On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > Roman, > > See comments below to > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/COMDEV/Provisional+TLP > > > 2.1 --> I suggest to change the word "probationary" to "provisional". I > also suggest that