Re: Error on Release Download Page page ?

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 8:52 PM sebb wrote: > On 8 December 2016 at 01:38, John D. Ament wrote: > > For me, the key is the "official release" - an official release has been > > voted on by the relevant PMC and approved for use. The labeling of it - > > alpha, beta, etc is moot. Maybe we should

Re: Error on Release Download Page page ?

On 8 December 2016 at 01:38, John D. Ament wrote: > For me, the key is the "official release" - an official release has been > voted on by the relevant PMC and approved for use. The labeling of it - > alpha, beta, etc is moot. Maybe we should take out that part and instead > use: > > Only releas

Re: proposal for a GSoC post-mortem survey

OTOH, surveys is an interesting service, since it doesn't have to be maintained forever. As long as the output data is committed into source control, it can be taken down without consequence. Which is radically different from Wikis, trackers and so on... Cheers Niclas On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 10:47

Re: Error on Release Download Page page ?

For me, the key is the "official release" - an official release has been voted on by the relevant PMC and approved for use. The labeling of it - alpha, beta, etc is moot. Maybe we should take out that part and instead use: Only release artifacts that have been approved by the relevant PMC may be

Re: Error on Release Download Page page ?

I agree with Stian. It was discussed ~12-14 years ago, how to deal with "release for public consumption", "release for beta testers", "nightly builds" and so on. And AFAIR, the Stian's explanation mirrors the consensus from back then, and perhaps the wording is not optimal. Niclas On Wed, Dec 7,

Re: What's the plan? What are we here for?

On 12/07/2016 02:42 PM, Peter Hunsberger wrote: > Now's that's a false dichotomy and you should know better. Can metrics be > abused? Sure. Are the people in this group stupid enough to allow that to > happen? I highly doubt it. "This group" is a public mailing list. I don't think stupidity en

GSoC: What can we learn from it?

I'd like to propose that for GSoC and other such events, we analyze participation before, after and way after GSoC with the goal of becoming better at utilizing this event to improve community development, not only within projects, but also on a broader ASF-wide scale. If possible, I would love fo

Re: What's the plan? What are we here for?

Now's that's a false dichotomy and you should know better. Can metrics be abused? Sure. Are the people in this group stupid enough to allow that to happen? I highly doubt it. Peter Hunsberger On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Ulrich Stärk wrote: > On 07.12.16 16:18, Peter Hunsberger wrote: > >>

Re: What's the plan? What are we here for?

On 12/07/2016 08:01 PM, Ulrich Stärk wrote: > On 07.12.16 16:18, Peter Hunsberger wrote: >>> >>> I guess I'm done talking. I'm going to do some things. Folks can play along if they want, but I'm apparently terrible at talking about it. So I'll just do. >>> >>> Big +1. >> >> This thre

Re: What's the plan? What are we here for?

On 07.12.16 16:18, Peter Hunsberger wrote: >> >> >>> I guess I'm done talking. I'm going to do some things. Folks can play >>> along if they want, but I'm apparently terrible at talking about it. So >>> I'll just do. >> >> Big +1. > > This thread has been pretty confusing from what I know of "the

Re: What's the plan? What are we here for?

On 12/07/2016 10:18 AM, Peter Hunsberger wrote: >> > >>> > > I guess I'm done talking. I'm going to do some things. Folks can play >>> > > along if they want, but I'm apparently terrible at talking about it. So >>> > > I'll just do. >> > >> > Big +1. > This thread has been pretty confusing from w

Re: What's the plan? What are we here for?

> > > > I guess I'm done talking. I'm going to do some things. Folks can play > > along if they want, but I'm apparently terrible at talking about it. So > > I'll just do. > > Big +1. This thread has been pretty confusing from what I know of "the Apache way"; if someone wants to do something const

Re: proposal for a GSoC post-mortem survey

On 07.12.16 11:32, Daniel Gruno wrote: > On 12/07/2016 11:29 AM, Ulrich Stärk wrote: >> On 07.12.16 10:26, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: >>> Hi Uli, >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Ulrich Stärk wrote: ...I want to propose a post-mortem survey that hopefully captures a more complete

Re: proposal for a GSoC post-mortem survey

On 12/07/2016 09:15 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: > Related (and, I assume, an easy fix for someone that knows the site > layout better than I) - I discovered that that link, taken from a > subpage (eg, from > http://community.apache.org/mentoring/experiences.html) is *relative* > rather than absolute, a

Re: Error on Release Download Page page ?

Hang on, it's perfectly fine for ASF projects to publish and link to milestone/alpha/beta releases - as long as they have also gone through a formal release VOTE and checking, they are still "official releases". http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#release-types What is confusing about your quo

Re: What's the plan? What are we here for?

Hi Rich On 05.12.16 18:54, Rich Bowen wrote: > As has been discussed elsewhere, we don't have a clear idea of what > we're here for. I believe we need to fix that. Agreed. > > Why This Matters > > 1) So that we know how to ask for help > > This matters because people *flock* to us saying "I w

Re: proposal for a GSoC post-mortem survey

On 12/07/2016 05:29 AM, Ulrich Stärk wrote: > On 07.12.16 10:26, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: >> Hi Uli, >> >> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Ulrich Stärk wrote: >>> ...I want to propose a post-mortem survey that >>> hopefully captures a more complete picture >> >> Instead of a survey, how ab

Re: proposal for a GSoC post-mortem survey

On 12/07/2016 04:26 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > Hi Uli, > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Ulrich Stärk wrote: >> ...I want to propose a post-mortem survey that >> hopefully captures a more complete picture > > Instead of a survey, how about asking GsoC mentors to send a note here >

Re: proposal for a GSoC post-mortem survey

Ulrich Stärk wrote on 12/7/16 5:49 AM: > Thanks for the feedback Shane! > > On 06.12.16 14:09, Shane Curcuru wrote: >> Ulrich Stärk wrote on 12/6/16 3:59 AM: ...snip... >> Separately, are we allowed to (by GSoC rules), and would it be >> practical, to do a short survey for exiting GSoC *students*,

Re: Error on Release Download Page page ?

John D. Ament wrote on 12/7/16 7:31 AM: > The following text is found on > http://www.apache.org/dev/release-download-pages.html#links (4th bullet in > that section) > > Artifacts which are not full official releases (for example, milestones, > betas and alphas) may be linked from the download pag

Re: What's the plan? What are we here for?

All I can say is: thumbsup for anyone scratching the itch... If others feel that the one doing is not doing the right thing, I say: go scratch... Best regards, Pierre Smits ORRTIZ.COM OFBiz based solutions & services OFBiz Extensions Marketplace http://oem.ofbizci.net/o

Re: proposal for a GSoC post-mortem survey

Hi community, I'd suggest to add a few questions to the questionnaire. - What problems did you face when you ranked and selected among GSoC applicants? (free text) - How many (estimate) hours did you take to rank and select among GSoC applicants? - How you would classify the relationship created

Re: What's the plan? What are we here for?

On 12/06/2016 04:59 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > Now, nothing prevents us from clarifying the charter (or going above and > beyond > it) That's exactly what I was doing. It's incredibly frustrating to me how hard it is for anyone at the ASF to say "let's make this thing better" without a half

Re: Error on Release Download Page page ?

John, I believe the 'Links to these artifacts should be removed in a timely fashion' should be removed as well. Best regards, Pierre Smits ORRTIZ.COM OFBiz based solutions & services OFBiz Extensions Marketplace http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 1:31

Error on Release Download Page page ?

The following text is found on http://www.apache.org/dev/release-download-pages.html#links (4th bullet in that section) Artifacts which are not full official releases (for example, milestones, betas and alphas) may be linked from the download page. Links to these artifacts should be removed in a t

Re: What's the plan? What are we here for?

I've got no idea how you read what I wrote and see it as "policing". I used to think I was a good communicator. I see now I was mistaken. On Dec 6, 2016 16:59, "Roman Shaposhnik" wrote: On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Rich Bowen wrote: > > > On 12/06/2016 01:26 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: >>

Re: proposal for a GSoC post-mortem survey

Thanks for the feedback Shane! On 06.12.16 14:09, Shane Curcuru wrote: > Ulrich Stärk wrote on 12/6/16 3:59 AM: >> Hi ComDev community, >> >> since I believe that measuring two data points only to measure the success >> of programs like GSoC in >> building communities is going to do more harm tha

Re: proposal for a GSoC post-mortem survey

On 12/07/2016 11:29 AM, Ulrich Stärk wrote: > On 07.12.16 10:26, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: >> Hi Uli, >> >> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Ulrich Stärk wrote: >>> ...I want to propose a post-mortem survey that >>> hopefully captures a more complete picture >> >> Instead of a survey, how abou

Re: proposal for a GSoC post-mortem survey

On 07.12.16 10:26, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > Hi Uli, > > On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Ulrich Stärk wrote: >> ...I want to propose a post-mortem survey that >> hopefully captures a more complete picture > > Instead of a survey, how about asking GsoC mentors to send a note here > about t

Re: proposal for a GSoC post-mortem survey

Hi Uli, On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Ulrich Stärk wrote: > ...I want to propose a post-mortem survey that > hopefully captures a more complete picture Instead of a survey, how about asking GsoC mentors to send a note here about their GSoC success or failure story? We can send them your li

Re: What's the plan? What are we here for?

Hi, On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > ...under these definitions, I think ComDev should certainly have goals I think your analysis with goals, strategies and plans is spot on, thanks for that! Going back to Rich's list I'm fine with comdev having goals like the following,