Stephen McConnell wrote:
Look at things from the other way round. For all practical purposes
you are the defacto point-man with respect to the Directory project.
From the point-of-view of people on the directory project you are the
man they can turn to privaetly, ask questions, seek advice, a
Leo Simons wrote:
IMHO, as long as a project still requires a "point man" (or
as long as the PMC still requires such a person in order to
be kept up to date of what is happening in the directory
project), the project is not ready for graduation.
Absolutely! A good test of maturity. If the mentor
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
IMHO, as long as a project still requires a "point man" (or
as long as the PMC still requires such a person in order to
be kept up to date of what is happening in the directory
project), the project is not ready for graduation.
Absolutely! A good tes
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
IMHO, as long as a project still requires a "point man" (or
as long as the PMC still requires such a person in order to
be kept up to date of what is happening in the directory
project), the project is not ready for graduation.
A
Leo Simons wrote:
Absolutely! A good test of maturity. If the mentor is doing
absolutely nothing and things are going well, then there is no need
for a mentor and quite possibly no need for the project to be in
incubation anymore.
Exactly!
So you are saying there should be a single lias
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Absolutely! A good test of maturity. If the mentor is doing
absolutely nothing and things are going well, then there is no need
for a mentor and quite possibly no need for the project to be in
incubation anymore.
Exactly!
So you are saying there sh
Leo Simons wrote:
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Absolutely! A good test of maturity. If the mentor is doing
absolutely nothing and things are going well, then there is no
need for a mentor and quite possibly no need for the project to be
in incubation anymore.
Exactly!
S
Stephen McConnell wrote:
...
Umm - I talked about a "point-man"!
Well then, we already have designated Mentors that I refer to in case of
need and that I assume are in charge. I don't see why you guys are
making such a fuss over a thing that is already there and is not going away.
http://incubat
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Absolutely! A good test of maturity. If the mentor is doing
absolutely nothing and things are going well, then there is no
need for a mentor and quite possibly no need for the project to
be in incubation a
Leo Simons wrote:
Stephen McConnell wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Absolutely! A good test of maturity. If the mentor is doing
absolutely nothing and things are going well, then there is no
need for a mentor and quite possibly no need for the project t
Hi,
I am committer at Avalon and working on (among other things) IDE tools for
Avalon[1] and Merlin[2] in particular.
I have been in contact with Andreas Oberhack, who has previously done a fair
amount of work in this area already, and he is willing to put his code
straight into the IDE effort
Stephen McConnell wrote:
My response was related to the on-going debate about invididuals
versus group reponsibilities. What I described is role of an
individual lined to both an incubating project and to Apache at
large. I descibed the benefit that such a "real-person" can bring to
a new gr
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> When did liason come into this? I am confused as to what on
> earth oversite and assistance has to do with liason?
See the quoted language below.
> I am also confused as to why having an identified person
> would restrict others from being involved?
Read Stephen's own
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 06:16:56PM +1100, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
> >>I should finally add that we have basically agreed also that the PPMC is
> >>made of all PMC members and all the committers+landing PMC members, but
> >>that only the mentors must always be subscribed
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 08:20:40AM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Again? They are already voted in with the proposal, so I don't see why
> they have to be voted in *again*.
Because that is the intuitive way of doing it while having to put all
this stuff in the proposal makes things really com
Aaron Bannert wrote:
It's a start. But you also need the landing PMC members.
What's a landing PMC member?
Where the code is to go into an existing project, then the PMC of
pre-existing project is the landing PMC. E.g. XML-Beans is set to enter
the XML project once it leaves the icnubator, s
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Healthy ASF Projects are neither leaderless nor headless. They are run by
multiple heads -- individuals participating as peers -- converging on a
consensus. Sometimes things may take longer than one person acting on their
own, but it often means a better result, and it ens
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 08:02:44AM +0100, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> >Who are the set of people who may add themselves to this list?
>
> Apache, Incubator and landing PMC members. Apache members that join
> should be made part of the Incubator PMC.
I don't know what a landing PMC member is, but
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 03:06:27AM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > However there should be one person (the single mentor that we
> > originally had) who is tracking the project, the PPMC etc.,
> > holding them to task and making the Incubator PMC aware of any
> > issues. That to me is a critical
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 10:27:54AM +0100, Leo Simons wrote:
> IMHO, as long as a project still requires a "point man" (or
> as long as the PMC still requires such a person in order to
> be kept up to date of what is happening in the directory
> project), the project is not ready for graduation.
I
On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 10:13:46PM +1100, Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> When did liason come into this? I am confused as to what on earth
> oversite and assistance has to do with liason? I am also confused as to
> why having an identified person would restrict others from being involved?
Because i
Aaron Bannert wrote:
> Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> > It's a start. But you also need the landing PMC members.
> What's a landing PMC member?
If the project is intended to go under an existing PMC, e.g., axion going to
the DB PMC, the "landing PMC" is the latter.
I could support a policy that an in
Berin,
> I said in an e-mail some time back that I suspect we are are
> violently agreeing. I still believe that :>.
:-)
> Your above point exactly matches my desire. I'm not looking for what
> I call "the accountable person" to drive and lead etc. in the normal
> course of events.
> However,
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Now ... why not designate people beforehand to provide corrective action(s)?
Perhaps for the reasons that Sam is often quiet as a PMC Chair, or Greg is
very careful about which e-mail address he uses. Because they have found
that it *does* make a difference. Once you desig
Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> You could apply the argument above to say we don't want a chair of the
> PMC or a chair of the board.
No, I would not, as they are not the same as a PPMC mentor. We do have a
PMC Chair, and we don't need a PPMC Chair (Greg already discussed that, as
you may recall).
>
25 matches
Mail list logo
