On 7/23/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/22/06, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 2006, at 1:50 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> > no change is necessary - the current policy is sufficient.
(no change in policy was meant - hopefully that was c
On Sun, 2006-07-23 at 15:52 +0100, robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> let's be honest - the policy document is a mess.
>
> i can't even get 3 +1's to remove commented out material from the policy
> document.
+1 from me for removing cruft ;-).
Sanjiva.
---
On 7/22/06, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 22, 2006, at 1:50 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> no change is necessary - the current policy is sufficient.
(no change in policy was meant - hopefully that was clear from the context)
Well, no, the expectation is clearly bein
sorry posted the wrong email :-/
On 7/23/06, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/23/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> > Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>
> > > no change is necessary - the current policy is sufficient.
>
> > Well, no, th
On 7/23/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> > no change is necessary - the current policy is sufficient.
> Well, no, the expectation is clearly being ...
I agree with Roy. I'm not sure if he and I yet agree or disagree on wh
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> > no change is necessary - the current policy is sufficient.
> Well, no, the expectation is clearly being ...
I agree with Roy. I'm not sure if he and I yet agree or disagree on what
the policy should be, but there are clearly conflicting
On Jul 22, 2006, at 1:50 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
no change is necessary - the current policy is sufficient.
Well, no, the expectation is clearly being set that anyone can add
themselves to the proposal on the wiki, and I for one vote to approve
a proposal based on both the wiki and th
On 7/21/06, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 20, 2006, at 7:30 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
"Policies" (for whatever level they exist here) have been set up
> established practice- and as you know the mode of operation here so
> far
> has been "add yourself to the wiki".
On Jul 20, 2006, at 7:30 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 14:54 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Jul 19, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
This piling on behavior seems to have come from the notion that if
you get
on the initial vote, you're in, but otherwise you ha
On Jul 20, 2006, at 7:56 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 15:00 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I think so -- an unwelcome mentor is a waste of everyone's time.
I also think mentors need commit access, since I don't believe it is
^^
Th
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 15:00 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
It is kind of like getting advice at a barn-raising from some bystander
who isn't willing to lend a hand. The advice will be heard for about
five minutes, after which the people doing the work will simply igno
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 15:00 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I think so -- an unwelcome mentor is a waste of everyone's time.
>
> I also think mentors need commit access, since I don't believe it is
^^
This is the documented practice; see
http://incubator.apa
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 14:54 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> > This piling on behavior seems to have come from the notion that if
> > you get
> > on the initial vote, you're in, but otherwise you have to earn
> > committership. And the just
Sure, and that is up to the proposer. If the proposal does not gain
sufficient support from Apache because of that fact, that's life.
Nevertheless, it is wrong for us to force a new podling to accept
arbitrary committers just because they happen to have been proposed
as an incubator podling.
+
On Jul 20, 2006, at 2:54 PM, Paul Fremantle wrote:
On 7/19/06, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe that it is a bad idea to allow people to add themselves
to a proposal as committers without first obtaining the consent of
the person(s) making the proposal. Being a committer in
On Jul 19, 2006, at 3:34 PM, Ian Holsman wrote:
I was more thinking of how mentors volunteer to guide the project
should the podlings have a say on who gets to mentor them?
for example I could become a mentor of Blaize (I actually like the
project)
but shouldn't the proposer have a say ?
On Jul 19, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
This piling on behavior seems to have come from the notion that if
you get
on the initial vote, you're in, but otherwise you have to earn
committership. And the justification for the first part seemed to
be making
sure that a company could
Roy
On 7/19/06, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe that it is a bad idea to allow people to add themselves
to a proposal as committers without first obtaining the consent of
the person(s) making the proposal. Being a committer in the incubator
is giving a person the right to v
On 7/20/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Martin Sebor wrote:
> one of the checkboxes on the status page says:
> Give all Mentors access to all incubator SVN modules (to be
> done by PMC chair).
> so it seems they are required to have access whether the rest
> of the commit
On 7/19/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ian Holsman wrote:
> should the podlings have a say on who gets to mentor them?
> for example I could become a mentor of Blaize (I actually like the
> project) but shouldn't the proposer have a say ?
If you accept that a Mentor is just a n
I guess I misread the proposed bootstrap procedure and its
ramifications.
- bootstrap the PPMC from the PMC (assigning Mentors)
- election by the PPMC of project contributors to the PPMC
- election by the PPMC of Committers
1. I was wondering why incubating project committers who are not PPM
Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> PPMC can oversee the process and should be able to veto proposed
> committers without sufficient earned karma, but I don't see the
> downsides of self-government of the incubating project.
The PPMC *is* the self-governing body for the Incubating project. Which is
why I k
On 7/19/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Garrett Rooney wrote:
> Sure, but I think it should be made clear to mentors that the fact
> that nothing is preventing them from committing changes to the project
> they mentor doesn't mean that they should do so with abandon.
Does my resp
Garrett Rooney wrote:
> Sure, but I think it should be made clear to mentors that the fact
> that nothing is preventing them from committing changes to the project
> they mentor doesn't mean that they should do so with abandon.
Does my response to Martin sufficiently reflect your view?
-
Martin Sebor wrote:
> one of the checkboxes on the status page says:
> Give all Mentors access to all incubator SVN modules (to be
> done by PMC chair).
> so it seems they are required to have access whether the rest
> of the committers like it or not.
Yes, they must have it to enable ove
Andrus Adamchik wrote:
...
> [...] Probably makes sense to mention in the incubator docs [1] that
> new committers are to be voted in following the normal Apache procedures.
Actually it's the incubator ppmc doc that discusses voting in new
committers:
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/ppmc.
As always there is another dimension to every problem... Noel brings
a good point about single company contributions. The solution seems
wrong though.
PPMC can oversee the process and should be able to veto proposed
committers without sufficient earned karma, but I don't see the
downsides
On 7/19/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Garrett Rooney wrote:
> Personally, yes, I feel this should apply to mentors as well.
The Mentors are all Incubator PMC members, and the Incubator PMC as a whole
oversees all Incubator projects. Every Incubator PMC member has an equal
bind
Ian Holsman wrote:
> should the podlings have a say on who gets to mentor them?
> for example I could become a mentor of Blaize (I actually like the
> project) but shouldn't the proposer have a say ?
If you accept that a Mentor is just a name for an Incubator PMC member who
is active in the proje
Garrett Rooney wrote:
> Personally, yes, I feel this should apply to mentors as well.
The Mentors are all Incubator PMC members, and the Incubator PMC as a whole
oversees all Incubator projects. Every Incubator PMC member has an equal
binding vote on every Incubator matter, and ought to be able
Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 7/19/06, Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
are you referring to mentors as well?
Personally, yes, I feel this should apply to mentors as well. While
there are cases where a mentor needs commit access for some sort of
procedural issues (maintaining STATUS files,
Roy,
This piling on behavior seems to have come from the notion that if you get
on the initial vote, you're in, but otherwise you have to earn
committership. And the justification for the first part seemed to be making
sure that a company could not start with a lot of its own people, and keep
out
I was more thinking of how mentors volunteer to guide the project
should the podlings have a say on who gets to mentor them?
for example I could become a mentor of Blaize (I actually like the
project)
but shouldn't the proposer have a say ?
On 20/07/2006, at 8:17 AM, Garrett Rooney wrote:
On Jul 19, 2006, at 6:19 PM, Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 7/19/06, Andrus Adamchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1.
As a member of an incubating project I totally agree with this.
What I didn't know is that there was a policy that allowed anyone to
just declare themselves committers without consen
also +1 on Roy,
On 7/19/06, Garrett Rooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/19/06, Andrus Adamchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1.
>
> As a member of an incubating project I totally agree with this.
>
> What I didn't know is that there was a policy that allowed anyone to
> just declare themselve
On 7/19/06, Andrus Adamchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1.
As a member of an incubating project I totally agree with this.
What I didn't know is that there was a policy that allowed anyone to
just declare themselves committers without consensus of the existing
project participants?
I don't be
On 7/19/06, Ian Holsman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
are you referring to mentors as well?
Personally, yes, I feel this should apply to mentors as well. While
there are cases where a mentor needs commit access for some sort of
procedural issues (maintaining STATUS files, helping to fix up
licens
+1.
As a member of an incubating project I totally agree with this.
What I didn't know is that there was a policy that allowed anyone to
just declare themselves committers without consensus of the existing
project participants?
Andrus
On Jul 19, 2006, at 6:09 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
are you referring to mentors as well?
On 20/07/2006, at 8:09 AM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I believe that it is a bad idea to allow people to add themselves
to a proposal as committers without first obtaining the consent of
the person(s) making the proposal. Being a committer in the incubator
is
On 7/19/06, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe that it is a bad idea to allow people to add themselves
to a proposal as committers without first obtaining the consent of
the person(s) making the proposal. Being a committer in the incubator
is giving a person the right to veto c
40 matches
Mail list logo
