On 6 June 2012 03:46, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>
>> There is no diversity requirement at the ASF.
>
> On one hand, I definitely agree with you. Derby graduated without
> meeting the diversity requirement.
On the one hand I agree too, on the other
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> There is no diversity requirement at the ASF.
On one hand, I definitely agree with you. Derby graduated without
meeting the diversity requirement.
That being said, I would like to bring up one thing: I have found it
*very* handy when ap
Thanks Roy. Yes, I would like the diversity section modified, although I'm not
quite sure how I'd reword it. Even if it isn't, your post below can always be
referenced again to aid anyone else who may be confused.
Ralph
On Jun 5, 2012, at 5:00 PM, "Roy T. Fielding" wrote:
> On Jun 5, 2012,
. Neither
does our brand. Let's please stop pretending it does.
+1 to Roy's and Benson's remarks
- Original Message -
> From: Benson Margulies
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2012 8:24 PM
> Subject: Re: diversity
>
>T
The diversity (so-called) requirement is often stated in terms of the
risk of the project being stranded if a company changes course. From
what I see around the Foundation, this is usually a risk much akin to
the risk of all the air molecules congregating in one corner of the
room at the board F2F,
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 5:16 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> Would it make a difference, if I step up and make the initial PMC Chair, as
> I have over the last couple of weeks started my own commitment to the
> project?
My main concern is over the small number of people writing code for
the projec
Jukka,
I don't like to force "majority result" if there is controversy.
Having a couple of -1, and other not voting but practically agreeing with
you and Ant, is not the way to go.
I think they are as ready as they can get, considering the starting point
and the general attitude towards incubated
I will try to answer it;
1. I think it is an extreme question. If both disappeared tomorrow, I don't
think the will to continue exists. If it happens 12 months from now in the
Incubator, I think it could go either way. If happens 12 months after
graduation, I am pretty sure it sustains. Why do I t
On Aug 5, 2009, at 10:15 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Martijn
Dashorst wrote:
AFAIK Nowhere in the policy it is stated that committer activity ==
code commits.
True, but that's how I interpret it, for reasons stated earlier in
this thread.
My -1 in the Pi
On Aug 5, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Niall Pemberton wrote:
OK we have a similar example here at the ASF - when Craig McC. left
Apache Shale it slowly died - and AFAIK become the first project to
join the Attic. So Ceki decides to become a Yak farmer in patagonia
and maybe the same thing happens to S
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 2:39 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Aug 4, 2009, at 2:10 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Bertrand
>> Delacretaz wrote:
>>>
>>> In such a case, the key point is, do the people who write the code
>>> listen to the community?
>>
>> That's
On Aug 5, 2009, at 9:58 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
AFAIK Nowhere in the policy it is stated that committer activity ==
code commits.
Martijn
Absolutely right. I'd actually like to see more than 3 people with
commit privs (and I think most projects have that). As a mentor I
would be look
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Martijn
Dashorst wrote:
> AFAIK Nowhere in the policy it is stated that committer activity ==
> code commits.
True, but that's how I interpret it, for reasons stated earlier in this thread.
My -1 in the Pivot vote is just a statement of concern based on my
int
AFAIK Nowhere in the policy it is stated that committer activity ==
code commits.
Martijn
On Wednesday, August 5, 2009, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> On Aug 5, 2009, at 8:40 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>> We are looking for projects with at le
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Aug 5, 2009, at 8:21 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 5, 2009, at 2:00 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Ralph Goers
>>> That's why I measure the "three independent committers" criteria by
>>
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> On Aug 5, 2009, at 8:40 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> We are looking for projects with at least three independent
>> committers, and personally I'm not including inactive committers in
>> that count.
>
> Now you are making hard and fast rules
On Aug 5, 2009, at 8:40 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Ralph
Goers wrote:
You won't find the second part solely from the commit log. I would
expect
mentors to be monitoring the dev list. If it is filled with "can
you fix
this?" then there is a problem. But i
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> You won't find the second part solely from the commit log. I would expect
> mentors to be monitoring the dev list. If it is filled with "can you fix
> this?" then there is a problem. But if it also has "why did you do this?",
> "can we do th
On Aug 5, 2009, at 8:21 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
On Aug 5, 2009, at 2:00 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Ralph Goers> wrote:
Using these projects as an example is perhaps not the best from a
community
perspective because Ceki has no intention of running them lik
On Aug 5, 2009, at 2:00 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Ralph
Goers wrote:
Using these projects as an example is perhaps not the best from a
community
perspective because Ceki has no intention of running them like Apache
projects. But even if he did, by these
Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> Using these projects as an example is perhaps not the best from a community
>> perspective because Ceki has no intention of running them like Apache
>> projects. But even if he did, by these standards the projects
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> Using these projects as an example is perhaps not the best from a community
> perspective because Ceki has no intention of running them like Apache
> projects. But even if he did, by these standards the projects might never
> make it out of
2009/8/5 Ralph Goers :
>
> On Aug 4, 2009, at 2:10 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Bertrand
>> Delacretaz wrote:
>>>
>>> In such a case, the key point is, do the people who write the code
>>> listen to the community?
>>
>> That's certainly good, but [snip]
Yes,
And here is another angle; ALL projects will die, it is just a matter of
time.
Now, knowing that we need to deal with, and can't set out with the notion
that if we think it might whither it can't graduate, then I will need to
vote against all graduations.
So, IMHO, the "might die" criteria i
On Aug 4, 2009, at 2:10 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Bertrand
Delacretaz wrote:
In such a case, the key point is, do the people who write the code
listen to the community?
That's certainly good, but IMHO not really the key point as it doesn't
address the cas
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
>
47 matches
Mail list logo
