gt; wider community, not just the pmc, in some sense?
>>
>>
>> - Original Message
>>> From: Craig L Russell
>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>> Sent: Thu, August 19, 2010 4:09:19 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Subversion full/partial com
On Aug 19, 2010, at 6:32 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
Hm, sounds like sour grapes reappearing. Having the subversion
community
drop 10 years of common terminology and quickly adopt ours isn't
what I
consider part and parcel of incubation.
I guess I have to say it again. I'm not suggesting th
- Original Message
> From: Craig L Russell
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Thu, August 19, 2010 6:45:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)
>
> I wish we had completed this discussion while subversion was still in
ty, not just the pmc, in some sense?
>>
>>
>> - Original Message
>>>
>>> From: Craig L Russell
>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>> Sent: Thu, August 19, 2010 4:09:19 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Craig L Russell
wrote:
> I wish we had completed this discussion while subversion was still in
> incubation, while the subversion community could learn the common Apache
> terminology and have no need for translation of the terms.
>
> Instead, a suggestion to that
On Aug 19, 2010, at 11:25 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>
> ** Community
>
> Since our last report, in May, we have added two more committers.
> These are "partial" committers, meaning they are restricted to certain
> portions of the tree. The first, artagnon, is a GSoC student for
> Git(!) and
mmunity, not just the pmc, in some sense?
- Original Message
From: Craig L Russell
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Thu, August 19, 2010 4:09:19 PM
Subject: Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an
experiment)
Hi Joe,
Please read my messages again. I'm not suggestin
---
> From: Craig L Russell
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Thu, August 19, 2010 4:09:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> Please read my messages again. I'm not suggesting anything of the sort.
>
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 16:20, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>> > So it allows them to seamlessly earn wider karma via RTC?
>> Correct.
>
> So, it promotes CTR by the more experienced hands, and RTC by the less
> experienced hands. That does not seem like a bad thing.
Yup.
And to clarify: within their
Craig L Russell wrote on Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:38:48 -0700:
>
> On Aug 19, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> As I said in my other post, by using *both* sets of terms in the
>> report, the svn community also learns what the "formal" names are here
>> at the ASF. They can see the translati
> > So it allows them to seamlessly earn wider karma via RTC?
> Correct.
So, it promotes CTR by the more experienced hands, and RTC by the less
experienced hands. That does not seem like a bad thing.
--- Noel
-
To uns
Hi Joe,
Please read my messages again. I'm not suggesting anything of the sort.
Craig
On Aug 19, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
Cmon Craig. Subversion is a 10-year old community. Making major
changes
in basic terminology isn't something that happens in a day.
Craig L Russell
Ar
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 14:56, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> Actually, we don't use ACLs at all. We simply tell them "only commit
>> in your designated area". We haven't ever had a problem with that
>> approach.
>
> Even better. :-) Relies on human respect.
>
>> Even better: if
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> I'm perfectly comfortable letting the board provide feedback to Greg
> about its expectations for future Subversion reports, and see no need
> for anyone else to insert their opinions on the subject in any more
> than a limited and advisory basis.
I'm still trying to figure
Greg Stein wrote:
> Actually, we don't use ACLs at all. We simply tell them "only commit
> in your designated area". We haven't ever had a problem with that
> approach.
Even better. :-) Relies on human respect.
> Even better: if the committer gets a +1 on a patch from somebody with
> "full" ac
- Original Message
> From: Craig L Russell
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Thu, August 19, 2010 2:38:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Subversion full/partial committer (was: Re: an experiment)
>
>
> On Aug 19, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> > A
On Aug 19, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
As I said in my other post, by using *both* sets of terms in the
report, the svn community also learns what the "formal" names are here
at the ASF. They can see the translation.
So yeah. I'm doing exactly what you're asking: educating the communi
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:06, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>...
>> The report is consumed by the svn community, too. They reviewed it and
>> provided feedback. It uses terms from the svn community.
>...
> No way would the Board (nor you) allow arbitr
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:03, Ralph Goers wrote:
>...
> This seems really simple to me. If I move from Korea to the United States I'd
> better start learning to speak English if I want to interact with the
> population at large. If I just want to stay within my little Korean community
> then I
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 13:29, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>...
>> No way would the Board (nor you) allow arbitrary terminology across
>> projects even if it is "parentheticals" (whatever that means).
>
> As far as I'm concerned, the participants are Committers. There is no need
> to distinguish betwe
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>> I don't care what you call them in the project. I'm asking that you use
>>> Apache terminology when discussing things among the wider Apache
community.
>> The report is consumed by the svn community, too. They reviewed it and
>
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 14:03, Craig L Russell
> wrote:
>> I don't care what you call them in the project. I'm asking that you use
>> Apache terminology when discussing things among the wider Apache community.
>
> The report is consumed by the
On Aug 18, 2010, at 5:19 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>
>> identifying the project with the ASF. Similarly on many occasions we have
>> asked projects to pick a new name as part of the incubation process. We have
>> made exceptions for well established brands (ServiceMix & ActiveMQ were the
>> first
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 20:06, Sanjiva Weerawarana
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> How does naming accomplish the goal of collaborative, consensus-based
>> development? I thought that was why we were here. I hadn't heard that
>
> We force Java code to be package cha
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 3:41 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> How does naming accomplish the goal of collaborative, consensus-based
> development? I thought that was why we were here. I hadn't heard that
>
We force Java code to be package changed to be org.apache.*. Why do we do
that? That's a SERIOUS
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 18:02, Sanjiva Weerawarana
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Daniel Shahaf
>> wrote:
>>> > When I saw this month's board report for Subversion, I was taken aback
>>> > that the board is expected to follow t
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 18:02, Sanjiva Weerawarana
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Daniel Shahaf
> wrote:
>> > When I saw this month's board report for Subversion, I was taken aback
>> > that the board is expected to follow the terminology used by only one
>> > project. Really? The boa
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
> > When I saw this month's board report for Subversion, I was taken aback
> > that the board is expected to follow the terminology used by only one
> > project. Really? The board, which has used the same terms for 10++
> > years, is now goi
found that to be a useful device.
Sounds like something similar will work for Subversion.
Kudos.
- Original Message
> From: Daniel Shahaf
> To: bo...@apache.org
> Cc: Incubator
> Sent: Tue, August 17, 2010 4:06:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Subversion full/partial committer (wa
Greg Stein wrote on Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 14:26:24 -0400:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 14:03, Craig L Russell
> wrote:
> > I don't care what you call them in the project. I'm asking that you use
> > Apache terminology when discussing things among the wider Apache community.
@Craig, thanks for clarif
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 14:03, Craig L Russell wrote:
>...
>> Craig L Russell wrote on Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 09:42:18 -0700:
>...
> I don't care what you call them in the project. I'm asking that you use
> Apache terminology when discussing things among the wider Apache community.
The report is co
Craig L Russell wrote on Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 09:42:18 -0700:
> One of the first things you learn in Apache is that there are (at least)
> three levels of involvement that community members can take:
> contributor, committer, PMC member. See "how it works, roles, etc. etc."
> on the Apache site
Hi Daniel,
On Aug 17, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Craig L Russell wrote on Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 09:42:18 -0700:
One of the first things you learn in Apache is that there are (at
least)
three levels of involvement that community members can take:
contributor, committer, PMC member
- Original Message
> From: Craig L Russell
> To: Incubator ; Apache Board
> Sent: Tue, August 17, 2010 12:42:18 PM
> Subject: Re: an experiment
>
>
> On Aug 16, 2010, at 6:37 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> > I certainly could have handled it better. But
On Aug 16, 2010, at 6:37 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
I certainly could have handled it better. But that thread is
*indicative* of the problem. We've pointed out a several now: two with
Subversion, one with OODT.
Since you've brought it up time and again, it's worth thrashing
through. The kerfuffle
On 17/08/2010 05:32, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
I've already decided that I'm going to have to recruit a number of key
mentors to help me protect the project during incubation.
Historically, I think there are two classes of podlings:
- one
On 08/16/2010 09:32 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> I've already decided that I'm going to have to recruit a number of key
>> mentors to help me protect the project during incubation.
> Historically, I think there are two classes of podlings:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Gav... wrote:
> have something to say about it. I'm surprised no-one has mentioned about the
> Incubator PMC Chair
> up until now (actually I'm not, and I bet that no one steps up to agree with
> me here, I expect
> to be alone in my opinion.)
I agree with you.
I
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> I've already decided that I'm going to have to recruit a number of key
> mentors to help me protect the project during incubation.
Historically, I think there are two classes of podlings:
- one which has a self-governing community and just n
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Your head is in the sand. The Incubator is a broken process. Everybody
> hates it. Everybody wants to get out of it. Subversion was fortunate
> in that we had enough support to bully our way through, to route
> around damage, and to check everyt
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 22:29, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> > I read that thread, and as I commented on private@, I thought that it could
>> > have been handled better.
>
>> I certainly could have handled it better.
>
> I didn't mean by YOU. See my reply on private@ before jump
Greg Stein wrote:
> > I read that thread, and as I commented on private@, I thought that it
could
> > have been handled better.
> I certainly could have handled it better.
I didn't mean by YOU. See my reply on private@ before jumping to that
conclusion.
> But that thread is *indicative* of the
Gavin wrote:
> > Actually, I read Incubator e-mail pretty much every day.
> Then why do you store up all your replies until report time? It makes no
> sense.
I don't. I just haven't had much to say lately, although I did post earlier
about Zeta and NPanday. And, as you know, I was away last wee
On 08/16/2010 07:30 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
That is not the message that we get from most participants, but if that is
the case, then let's fix it.
As I mentioned in a previous post, the main problem we (ATS) had was to
get enough binding votes. Even from the IPMC we failed one release
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 21:30, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
>...
>> but the busy-bodies and rules pedants got all in our face.
>
> I read that thread, and as I commented on private@, I thought that it could
> have been handled better.
I certainly could have handled it better. But th
Greg Stein wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > <> There are other instances of such things, such as httpd-docs
> > (IIUC), and I don't see a problem with it where a project feels it makes
> > sense.
> Our project thought it did make sense
Fine, and I'd agree with you.
> but the busy-bodies and
On 17/08/2010 02:05, Greg Stein wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 16:47, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
...
Your head is in the sand. The Incubator is a broken process. Everybody
hates it. Everybody wants to get out of it. Subversion was fortunate
in that we had enough support to bully our way through,
> -Original Message-
> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:n...@devtech.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 17 August 2010 9:13 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: an experiment
>
> Gavin McDonald wrote:
>
> > How about a PMC Chair that does more than t
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 16:47, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Kevan Miller wrote:
>
>> IIRC, the issue involved the notion of "partial committers" in subversion
>> There were objections over the notion of "partial committers", not about
> the individual.
>
> <> There are other instances of such things,
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 13:57, Benson Margulies wrote:
>...
> On committers there is a legal / procedural clarification called for.
> Perhaps I'm just dense, but I got the strong impression from the recent
> email at members@ that there was much more flexibility possible with
> committer status th
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 19:12, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Gavin McDonald wrote:
>
>> How about a PMC Chair that does more than turn up once a month at , ooh,
> day
>> before board reports are due and then disappears for a whole month until ,
>> ooh, day before report time.
>
> Actually, I read Incub
Gavin McDonald wrote:
> How about a PMC Chair that does more than turn up once a month at , ooh,
day
> before board reports are due and then disappears for a whole month until ,
> ooh, day before report time.
Actually, I read Incubator e-mail pretty much every day.
> And you still expect to run
> -Original Message-
> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:n...@devtech.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 17 August 2010 4:07 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: an experiment
>
> > Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > > Your reading of the corporate structure o
Kevan Miller wrote:
> IIRC, the issue involved the notion of "partial committers" in subversion
> There were objections over the notion of "partial committers", not about
the individual.
<> There are other instances of such things, such as httpd-docs
(IIUC), and I don't see a problem with it wher
Craig L Russell wrote:
> Here's the current process for getting new committers into an incubating
project:
> 1. Identify candidates
> 2. Discuss candidates on podling-private
> 3. Agree that candidate should be a committer
All PPMC functions; need no outside involvement.
> 4. Vote on podling-pr
On Aug 16, 2010, at 2:52 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Presumably there was no valid basis for the -1? Sucks, but Joe's proposal
> doesn't change the fact that any PMC Member can still vote on any project.
> The ASF does not have subprojects, there is only one PMC. We have gone
> through this wi
Hi Noel,
>> I guess that's what I take exception to, I think the PPMC _should_ have
>> standing.
>
> As per http://www.apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html#6.3, the defined
> governing entity is the Project Management Committee, better known as the
> PMC. And while the text does say that the PMC Ch
Chris A Mattmann wrote:
> > Well, that's sufficient, Chris. There should be no "nice to have"
aspect.
> > The only requirement is that the PMC has the ability to oversee. If we
can
> > streamline that process, great.
> Yeah, I guess to me the PPMC mentors should be fine to oversee without
> dou
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> a quick recap.
> an Incubator PMC member who was never involved in [the] community jumped
in
> the middle of a committer vote to vote -1. Greg wrote a cranky email
telling
> him to go away. Most of the committers in SVN were taken aback by the
behavior.
> "Who is this
i am not confused:-) the entire incubator is a 'walled sandbox'. if projects
can grant streamlined karma to sandbox branches to students, why not let
podlings add committers?
On Aug 16, 2010, at 2:23 PM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
> On Monday 16 August 2010 2:15:32 pm Luciano Resende wrote:
>> On Mon,
Hi Noel,
Thanks for your reply. Comments below:
>> From my point of view, it would be nice for podlings with active mentors
>> to be able to guide their own decisions, especially if there are 3 active
>> mentors and they approve. For example in our case in OODT, we can achieve
>> consensus and ob
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> What happened?
It's all in the archives, but a quick recap.
For Subversion, an Incubator PMC member who was never involved in the
SVN community jumped in the middle of a committer vote to vote -1.
Greg wrote a cranky email telling him to
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> I'm challenging the idea that allowing subprojects to vote in new
committers all
> by themselves is somehow taboo in this org
I understand. I am specifically raising that issue with the Board in this
month's report.
> > Giving them commit access has been deemed an action r
On Monday 16 August 2010 2:15:32 pm Luciano Resende wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Benson Margulies
>
> wrote:
> > On committers there is a legal / procedural clarification called for.
> > Perhaps I'm just dense, but I got the strong impression from the recent
> > email at members@ th
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > But, seriously, if there is systemic overreaching, lets address *that*
> > issue.
> The cases of "overreaching" in Subversion and OODT related to adding
> new committers - not releases.
What happened? And given that Subversion clearly (should have) had more
than 3 P
Chris A Mattmann wrote:
> From my point of view, it would be nice for podlings with active mentors
> to be able to guide their own decisions, especially if there are 3 active
> mentors and they approve. For example in our case in OODT, we can achieve
> consensus and obtain much of the necessary VO
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Benson Margulies
wrote:
> On committers there is a legal / procedural clarification called for.
> Perhaps I'm just dense, but I got the strong impression from the recent
> email at members@ that there was much more flexibility possible with
> committer status than
- Original Message
> From: Noel J. Bergman
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, August 16, 2010 2:02:15 PM
> Subject: RE: an experiment
>
> Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> > Are you trying to tell me that both jakarta and httpd have been in
> viol
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Your reading of the corporate structure of this org is needlessly
formal.
> And sometimes the job description of a PMC Chair is
Sorry, got distracted by the phone, and didn't finish the thought.
Part of the job description of a PMC Chair is to look after the Foundatio
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Are you trying to tell me that both jakarta and httpd have been in
violation
> of Apache bylaws all these years?
As as matter of fact, YES.
I can't speak for the HTTP Server situation, but in the case of Jakarta,
that was one of the reasons for breaking it up, along with pu
There is some obvious compromises opportunity here. On releases, the iPMC
could decide, by internal convention, to let the involved three mentors
(when there are three involved members) be the relevant voice. iPMC members
could pledge to defer to the involved mentors unless they feel that there is
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Where are you seeing this "over-reach" problem to which you refer? I have
> heard of a few isolated incidents, and those can be addressed. But by far
> and way, the biggest complaint is LACK of involvement, e.g.,
...
> And most cases of
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > We have one of the largest PMCs in the ASF.
> I view this as potentially the crux of the problem - people who aren't
> stakeholders in the community shouldn't have a say. Right now, they
> feel they do. So, if we want to mandate at least 3 mentors - fine,
> but that
Hi Guys,
>From my point of view, it would be nice for podlings with active mentors to be
>able to guide their own decisions, especially if there are 3 active mentors
>and they approve. For example in our case in OODT, we can achieve consensus
>and obtain much of the necessary VOTEs and oversigh
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Perhaps that's true for the projects you work on, but it certainly
> isn't true of Thrift, where mentorship has been a revolving door
> for years.
True. I've never been a big fan of requiring 3 mentors - as I think
certain personalities can
- Original Message
> From: Justin Erenkrantz
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, August 16, 2010 12:45:17 PM
> Subject: Re: an experiment
>
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > And if the Mentors aren't being active,
- Original Message
> From: Noel J. Bergman
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, August 16, 2010 12:18:39 PM
> Subject: RE: an experiment
>
> > I'd like to start experimenting with different organizational
> > and procedural approaches
On 08/16/2010 10:36 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Again, if the PPMC has 3 or more PMC members, it should be capable of
mustering the necessary votes by virtue of those PMC members voting.
Have I repeated the "every Incubator project should have at least 3 PMC
members providing oversight" mantra en
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> And if the Mentors aren't being active, voting, etc., then *that* is what
> needs to be addressed.
As I've repeatedly stated before (here and elsewhere), in the podlings
I've been recently involved with, having three mentors isn't the
issu
Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > How about requiring at least one mentor on the vote, so there is still
> > some oversight?
> I'm actually not in favor of that idea because relatively few
> mentors are active developers in their projects (I'm certainly
> in that category). Part of what I'm trying to tea
> Again, if the PPMC has 3 or more PMC members, it should be capable of
> mustering the necessary votes by virtue of those PMC members voting.
> Have I repeated the "every Incubator project should have at least 3 PMC
> members providing oversight" mantra enough, yet?
And if the Mentors aren't bei
> I'd like to start experimenting with different organizational
> and procedural approaches to the projects I participate in
> here. What I want to do is to see how far I can push
> the envelope on the whole notion of empowerment and
> self-governance in an incubating project, following the
> less
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> ...The first idea should be fairly straightforward: that for
> the projects I participate in (so far thrift and sis), that
> the IPMC delegates to the PPMC the decision-making process
> for voting in new committers: basically rolling back the
On 8/11/10 5:30 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
> On 08/11/2010 05:19 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/11/10 1:45 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>> So. Following some advice given to me by Sam Ruby,
>>> I'd like to start experimenting with different organizational
>>> and procedural approaches to
On 8/11/10 5:29 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> - Original Message
>
>> From: Donald Woods
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 5:19:03 PM
>> Subject: Re: an experiment
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/11/10 1:45 PM, Joe Sc
Fair enough :)
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 12, 2010, at 3:10 PM, Craig L Russell
wrote:
Hi Dims,
On Aug 12, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Craig,
in my mind, it's not the number of steps that we eliminate, it's the
message that we send. Instead of saying you all are *under*
Hi Dims,
On Aug 12, 2010, at 12:05 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Craig,
in my mind, it's not the number of steps that we eliminate, it's the
message that we send. Instead of saying you all are *under* the
microscope, we say that real quickly a few of you will become part of
the microscope and lo
Craig,
in my mind, it's not the number of steps that we eliminate, it's the
message that we send. Instead of saying you all are *under* the
microscope, we say that real quickly a few of you will become part of
the microscope and look in on not just yours but also other
podlings...my 2 cents.
than
- Original Message
> From: Craig L Russell
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Thu, August 12, 2010 2:21:44 PM
> Subject: Re: an experiment
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2010, at 10:45 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> > The first idea should be fairly straightforw
On Aug 11, 2010, at 10:45 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
The first idea should be fairly straightforward: that for
the projects I participate in (so far thrift and sis), that
the IPMC delegates to the PPMC the decision-making process
for voting in new committers: basically rolling back the clock
to Ma
- Original Message
> From: Niclas Hedhman
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Thu, August 12, 2010 1:13:41 AM
> Subject: Re: an experiment
> Yes, definitely more controversial. Pros would include greater
> exposure to the Incubator noise, learning from othe
- Original Message
> From: Stefan Bodewig
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Thu, August 12, 2010 12:43:59 AM
> Subject: Re: an experiment
> There isn't anything that would stop a mentor from proposing a podling
> committer who is not an ASF member as a
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> The first idea should be fairly straightforward: that for
> the projects I participate in (so far thrift and sis), that
> the IPMC delegates to the PPMC the decision-making process
> for voting in new committers: basically rolling back the cl
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Ant,
>
> My personal opinion (and i am hoping!) was that such individuals from ppmc's
> who end up in ipmc would help build bridges between podlings and will help
> get lessons learned (when any ppmc has issues/problems/roadblocks) back t
ed, Aug 11, 2010 at 19:24, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> From: Davanum Srinivas
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 6:28:17 PM
>> Subject: Re: an experiment
>>
>> Ant,
>>
>> My personal opinion (and i am hoping!) was th
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 19:24, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> From: Davanum Srinivas
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 6:28:17 PM
>> Subject: Re: an experiment
>>
>> Ant,
>>
>> My personal opinion (and i am hoping!) was th
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> The first idea should be fairly straightforward: that for
> the projects I participate in (so far thrift and sis), that
> the IPMC delegates to the PPMC the decision-making process
> for voting in new committers: basically rolling back the cl
On 2010-08-11, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> From: Davanum Srinivas
>> +1 to IPMC delegates to the PPMC the decision-making process for
>> voting in new committers (one question, would they need an ACK from
>> IPMC - similar to how PMC's send a note to the board for an ACK for
>> new pmc members)?
> Th
>> >> +1 to IPMC delegates to the PPMC the decision-making
>> >> process for voting in new committers (one question,
>> >> would they need an ACK from IPMC - similar to how PMC's
>> >> send a note to the board for an ACK for new pmc members)?
>> >
>> > That certainly sounds like a reasonable
- Original Message
> From: Matt Benson
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 5:19:53 PM
> Subject: Re: an experiment
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2010, at 4:14 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > - Original Message
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
