On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 9:27 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 04.08.2015 18:12, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> > What about the Ignite thread was "unfortunate"? That it was a bit
> > heated at times, or just the fact that there was disagreement? I fear
> > that there's too much bias towards +1'ing things ev
On 04.08.2015 18:12, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> What about the Ignite thread was "unfortunate"? That it was a bit
> heated at times, or just the fact that there was disagreement? I fear
> that there's too much bias towards +1'ing things even when folks have
> legitimate concerns.
Heated and disagree
On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> ...I may misunderstand or have lost track of how that's handled in all the
> discussion...
you're not alone - IMO the only way such proposals can work is based
on a concise wiki page that explains the proposal and gives everybody
a single re
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
that
... .
that used the maturity model format as a suggested form.
- D
-Original Message-
From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 10:37
To: general@incubator.apache.org; orc...@apache.org
Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate I
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
Sorry if it rubs the wrong way. However, we just have seen through the Ignite
discussion (most recent one) the examples where personal expectations were
represented as graduation requirements. It is perhaps in good faith - I am not
questioning the intention. I am saying that when requirements are u
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
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 02:50PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> On 08/04/2015 02:45 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> > Sorry if it rubs the wrong way. However, we just have seen through the
> > Ignite
> > discussion (most recent one) the examples where personal expectations were
> > represented as graduat
On 08/04/2015 02:45 PM, Konstantin Boudnik wrote:
> Sorry if it rubs the wrong way. However, we just have seen through the Ignite
> discussion (most recent one) the examples where personal expectations were
> represented as graduation requirements. It is perhaps in good faith - I am not
> questioni
> -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
Cos,
There is no "bureaucratism outbreak". People are not "express[ing]
their expectations as a law-of-the-land". People are trying, in good
faith, to make sure that decisions are made consistent with the Apache
ethos. And before you ask, no, that ethos cannot be written down; it
has to be interpr
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 03, 2015 at 11:36AM, Roman Shaposhnik 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 mak
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
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
"new" policies (yes, some changes
have been good, but it seems to me that many have not)
Ross
-Original Message-
From: Konstantin Boudnik [mailto:c...@apache.org]
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 5:15 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DI
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"
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
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
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
-
68 matches
Mail list logo
