Let's leave it for the next report then, I probably have all information but
spread across sources, so I don't have it ready.
Thanks,
-Flavio
On Mar 14, 2012, at 12:23 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Flavio Junqueira wrote:
>> Hi Jukka, We can certainly pr
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Flavio Junqueira wrote:
> Hi Jukka, We can certainly provide the information you request.
Cool, thanks!
> Do you want us to update the last report or to consider it for future reports?
No need to rush unless you already have the info readily available.
I'm
Hi Jukka, We can certainly provide the information you request. Do you want us
to update the last report or to consider it for future reports?
-Flavio
On Mar 14, 2012, at 12:05 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the review and followup, Daniel!
>
> Flavio Junqueira wrote on Wed, Ma
Hi,
Thanks for the review and followup, Daniel!
Flavio Junqueira wrote on Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 00:21:13 +0100:
> Is there anything important I'm missing?
I'm happy with your report for this month (with the note, as already
raised by Daniel, that technical issues are not relevant to
graduation).
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:07:18 +0200:
> Flavio Junqueira wrote on Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 00:21:13 +0100:
> > Is there anything important I'm missing?
>
> (/me leaves this question for the rest of general@ to answer)
... as I think their answers will be more useful than mine.
Flavio Junqueira wrote on Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 00:21:13 +0100:
> Thanks for your interest in the project. Here are my thoughts about the
> points raised.
>
> >>> I'd like to hear from the PPMC how they plan to expand their dev
> >>> community.
>
>
> I expect us to attract more developers by inc
Thanks for your interest in the project. Here are my thoughts about the points
raised.
>>> I'd like to hear from the PPMC how they plan to expand their dev
>>> community.
I expect us to attract more developers by increasing awareness. We have given
presentations about the project internally (a
+s4-dev@
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 6:48 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Ping, waiting for a response from s4-dev@ folks.
>
> Daniel Shahaf wrote on Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 16:19:27 +0200:
>> Jukka Zitting wrote on Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 14:41:00 +0100:
>> > Just pick one from the list (ideally one that you a
Ping, waiting for a response from s4-dev@ folks.
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 16:19:27 +0200:
> Jukka Zitting wrote on Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 14:41:00 +0100:
> > Just pick one from the list (ideally one that you aren't directly
> > mentoring), read the submitted report (if one exists!
Jukka Zitting wrote on Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 14:41:00 +0100:
> Just pick one from the list (ideally one that you aren't directly
> mentoring), read the submitted report (if one exists!) and compare it
> to the previous report (for most podlings that's the one from December
> [2]) and a quick browsin
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
> I know that prompted me to do a similar run-through on half of your
> list (I ran out of steam/time...I guess I'll start at the bottom next
> time) and I simply found nothing to add, but I did do much more
> overseeing by following along th
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 9:30 AM, ant elder wrote:
> And that seems understandable, however IMHO the lazer beam focus we
> now have on the quarterly reports doesn't necessarily help get better
> or active oversight, in fact it makes it even easier for mentors to
> just pop up every few months a
Jukka's recent email and activity are precisely what I was hoping for
when I joined the chorus of voices for new leadership.
On this thread, I have a thought or two. Of the podlings I have known,
most required very little supervision. The single largest exception
has always been getting the first
Hey hey,
Jukka this is sounding so timid :). You know, I think I'll break rank
and tell you what I really think. You may want to sit down first.
You [1] did a *kick ass* job on the last report. Kick. Ass. [2]. Kapow!
As well as spending the time to look through and digest it all
beforehand on
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> While there was no clear single message, the overall
> impression I got was that the board expects the Incubator PMC to
> provide better and more active oversight on podlings.
And that seems understandable, however IMHO the lazer beam focus
Jukka,
This sounds like a great plan to me. Providing the board with a summary
demonstrates that the IPMC has reviewed all of the podling reports and
assessed the progress of each podling. Also including the full podling
reports to the board both gives supporting evidence to the podling
summarie
Hi,
During the February board meeting there was a discussion about what
the directors would like to see in Incubator reports. The feedback we
got on this ranged from providing just an "executive summary" of all
Incubator activity to doing that *and* including all the podling
reports. While there w
17 matches
Mail list logo
