Re: Using Solr/Lucene to provide our own site search?

2017-03-29 Thread Ted Dunning
Sounds like a roadmap more than a focus, but otherwise good. On Mar 29, 2017 6:46 AM, "Shane Curcuru" wrote: > Wow, so there are folks interested! Great discussion, and good point: > projects that span projects or are working on broader community aspects > need clear definitions to keep dispara

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Phil Steitz
On 3/29/17 6:32 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: >> ...it speaks of "3 +1 and no vetoes"... Is it really >> "typical" that projects use vetoes for new committers?... > I like the "vetoes are only for code commits" rule that > https://www.apach

RE: MSDN Subscription for Apache Committers

2017-03-29 Thread Ross Gardler
No. -Original Message- From: Luciano Resende [mailto:luckbr1...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 11:54 AM To: Apache ComDev Subject: Re: MSDN Subscription for Apache Committers Ross, Any chance that MS would actually provide a long term subscription for Apache Committers to

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Joseph Schaefer
Let me clarify that. Each nomination receives comments from other members about their history with the nominee. Not all comments are positive, but those that are are effectively counted as seconds for the nominee. The actual vote is by simple majority however. Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 29

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Joseph Schaefer
Yes of course! Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 29, 2017, at 4:05 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: > > I wonder, when voting in new ASF Members is there the discussion on each > nominee to achieve consensus... > > Best regards, > > Pierre Smits > > ORRTIZ.COM > OFBiz based solutio

Re: MSDN Subscription for Apache Committers

2017-03-29 Thread Luciano Resende
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Raphael Bircher wrote: > Hi Luciano, * > > Can we really expect that? I don't think. The subscription we get costs a > load of money per year for normal people out there. We have to be lucky for > such an offer. I think, Microsoft don't like to support a inactive

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Pierre Smits
I wonder, when voting in new ASF Members is there the discussion on each nominee to achieve consensus... Best regards, Pierre Smits ORRTIZ.COM OFBiz based solutions & services OFBiz Extensions Marketplace http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 6:14 PM, De

Re: MSDN Subscription for Apache Committers

2017-03-29 Thread Raphael Bircher
Hi Luciano, * Can we really expect that? I don't think. The subscription we get costs a load of money per year for normal people out there. We have to be lucky for such an offer. I think, Microsoft don't like to support a inactive committer, who save a load of money and work anymore for the

Re: MSDN Subscription for Apache Committers

2017-03-29 Thread Luciano Resende
Ross, Any chance that MS would actually provide a long term subscription for Apache Committers to avoid the issues we are currently seeing with renew process ? On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > It's OK, go ahead and submit. I'll dedupe if necessary (I'm the first > point of

RE: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Dennis E. Hamilton
> -Original Message- > From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:mar...@rectangular.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 05:13 > To: dev@community.apache.org > Subject: Re: Vetoes for New Committers?? > [ ... ] > > Most PMCs do not draft their own rules, and just use "at least 3 +1 > with no veto

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Jim Jagielski
> On Mar 29, 2017, at 9:45 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: > > > Having the must-have-consensus (or unanimity) approach applied to > everything doesn't work as it stalls moving forward (or beyond petty > sentiments). > I'm not saying that majority rule is not a viable method to run a project. Nor am

Re: Using Solr/Lucene to provide our own site search?

2017-03-29 Thread Shane Curcuru
Wow, so there are folks interested! Great discussion, and good point: projects that span projects or are working on broader community aspects need clear definitions to keep disparate volunteers focused. There are two things *I* would be interested in helping with: 1- (Small concept) Super easy

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Pierre Smits
A call to vote (without or without a preceding discussion) is a means to achieve a result. Equally so is the Veto-principle regarding code changes, and the consensus-achieving discussion. What can be derived from the aforementioned 'Veto?/Veto!' discussion is that equally alienating/destructive ar

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Bertrand Delacretaz
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 2:03 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > ...it speaks of "3 +1 and no vetoes"... Is it really > "typical" that projects use vetoes for new committers?... I like the "vetoes are only for code commits" rule that https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html defines, at least implici

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Jim Jagielski
> On Mar 29, 2017, at 9:11 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: > > Applying the 'consensus', (or rather the 'every thing must be discussed > first') aspect everywhere is equally tyrranical. > > Hence the existence of the simple majority vote (50% of votes cast, + 1 > with a min of 3 votes) for procedural m

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Pierre Smits
Applying the 'consensus', (or rather the 'every thing must be discussed first') aspect everywhere is equally tyrranical. Hence the existence of the simple majority vote (50% of votes cast, + 1 with a min of 3 votes) for procedural matters. And onboarding new committers, members, officers, etc. is

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Myrle Krantz
> Recall at a time, EVERYONE at Apache, and our projects, were fully > volunteer with unknown and widely varying cycles of free time. We > understood the ebb-and-flow of available time as an unaligned > volunteer and based some of our core tenets around that. That's > why, for example, merit doesn'

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Jim Jagielski
> On Mar 28, 2017, at 8:15 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > > I asked a similar question on another list some time back, around voting in > new committers. I'm not going to share that thread (public vs private) but > I think the advice i got from it was spot on. In addition, I've heard > great addit

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Marvin Humphrey
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 5:15 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > You want > some form of consensus though through the addition of a committer. IF > someone has serious concerns, and is unwilling to change their vote, you > may want to hold off and monitor a bit further to see when that person > passes th

Re: Vetoes for New Committers??

2017-03-29 Thread Niclas Hedhman
Well, isn't that a weak argument, since said company already have majority and with vetoes can also block to loose such majority. If this happens, I would assume that someone in the PMC would bring it to Board's attention to look into the matter, as the only course of action against a malevolent co