On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
>...
> The Maturity Model defines evaluation criteria. It is probably the most
> useful for the task we're focused on now, which is how to decide when a
> proposed TLP is ready, regardless of the path it took towards readiness.
>
As I've
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> I'm growing increasingly enamored of the approach Bertrand (and
> others) are advocating: focusing on what the incubator ideally
> produces, namely a regular stream of Establish resolutions each
> accompanied by documentation assessing to the ma
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 2:36 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>
>> >> Ted, was it your intent to first get an agreement on *what* we all
>> expect
>> >> from the Incubator and then follow up on *how* are these expectations
>> >> going to be met b
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>>...
>
>> Huge +1 to the above. Very well said and is exactly how I now start
>> thing about the problem myself: Incubator is what's needed when
>> there are gaps in straight to TLP. L
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> And that is precisely why I have held back on your invitation that I
> edit the document.
>
> From a board evaluation perspective, I can tell you that proposals,
> mentors, and the like are not required. Suggesting that these steps
> are optiona
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
>...
> Perhaps defining exact criteria that the board uses to evaluate such
> resolutions would be useful.
>
The Board evaluates them differently based on the path. I explained Direct
else-thread.
Historically, the Board has trusted the I
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
>...
> Huge +1 to the above. Very well said and is exactly how I now start
> thing about the problem myself: Incubator is what's needed when
> there are gaps in straight to TLP. Lets identify what those gaps
>
There is one thing the Incuba
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> >> Ted, was it your intent to first get an agreement on *what* we all
> expect
> >> from the Incubator and then follow up on *how* are these expectations
> >> going to be met by our current policies?
> >>
> >
> > I think that is what I sa
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 2:07 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> Inline
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Ted Dunning
>> wrote:
>> > We have just had a few interminable threads regarding what is wrong with
>> > incubator and jumping directl
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think I'm with Sam. I think these are related. Or to be more explicit:
>>> the way a project joins a foundation (regardle
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
>
>> I think I'm with Sam. I think these are related. Or to be more explicit:
>> the way a project joins a foundation (regardless of what path it takes)
>> is via a board passing a res
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:38 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> I think I'm with Sam. I think these are related. Or to be more explicit:
> the way a project joins a foundation (regardless of what path it takes)
> is via a board passing a resolution.
>
> Perhaps defining exact criteria that the board u
Inline
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Ted Dunning
> wrote:
> > We have just had a few interminable threads regarding what is wrong with
> > incubator and jumping directly to implementation attempts for changes.
> ...
> >
> > To do thi
On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>> We already have what amounts to three paths: there is the full
>> Incubation process; there is is IP clearance, and there is straight to
>> TLP. We can view these as three points on a spectrum. Having a well
>> defined exit criteria and onl
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:55 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> We have just had a few interminable threads regarding what is wrong with
> incubator and jumping directly to implementation attempts for changes.
>
> That isn't the way I would code something complex so it seems to me that by
> analogy we might
Bertrand,
Thanks.
My content vision here is that the landing page at incubator should
highlight whatever task that most people landing there want to do. My
suspicion is that this task is to answer either "what is incubator?" or
"how can I bring my project to Apache?".
Regardless, we will need a
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
wrote:
> I did some wordsmithing but not certain how that works properly in Google
> Docs in terms of how changes are made evident for review, etc.
>
> - Dennis
>
> PS: When I go back and review, I see that I needed to leave more
> highlights o
adjustments. (Maybe a wiki would be
better, so there is a modification history?)
> -Original Message-
> From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org]
> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 01:29
> To: Incubator General
> Subject: Re: Starting from the other end
>
> Hi
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> ...The first step (What Apache Incubator Does) can be edited at
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dxUVHGWcj83wIVnskYL7iM7PiiScLLNS4HjGHa6LsgA/edit?usp=sharing
> ...
I like that.
Combined with a set of commented links that point to g
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Ted Dunning
> wrote:
>
> >
> > So here we go. The first step (What Apache Incubator Does) can be edited
> at
> >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dxUVHGWcj83wIVnskYL7iM7PiiScLLNS4HjGHa6LsgA/edit?usp=sha
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> We have just had a few interminable threads regarding what is wrong with
> incubator and jumping directly to implementation attempts for changes.
>
> That isn't the way I would code something complex so it seems to me that by
> analogy we might
We have just had a few interminable threads regarding what is wrong with
incubator and jumping directly to implementation attempts for changes.
That isn't the way I would code something complex so it seems to me that by
analogy we might want to start from the other end and start with what we
all a
22 matches
Mail list logo
