On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 19:24, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> From: Davanum Srinivas
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 6:28:17 PM
>> Subject: Re: an experiment
>>
>> Ant,
>>
>> My personal opinion (and i am hoping!) was that such individuals
>> from ppmc's who end up in ip
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> The first idea should be fairly straightforward: that for
> the projects I participate in (so far thrift and sis), that
> the IPMC delegates to the PPMC the decision-making process
> for voting in new committers: basically rolling back the cl
On 2010-08-11, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> From: Davanum Srinivas
>> +1 to IPMC delegates to the PPMC the decision-making process for
>> voting in new committers (one question, would they need an ACK from
>> IPMC - similar to how PMC's send a note to the board for an ACK for
>> new pmc members)?
> Th
>> >> +1 to IPMC delegates to the PPMC the decision-making
>> >> process for voting in new committers (one question,
>> >> would they need an ACK from IPMC - similar to how PMC's
>> >> send a note to the board for an ACK for new pmc members)?
>> >
>> > That certainly sounds like a reasonable
- Original Message
> From: Matt Benson
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 5:19:53 PM
> Subject: Re: an experiment
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2010, at 4:14 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > - Original Message
> >
> >> From: Davanum Srinivas
> >> To:
- Original Message
> From: Joe Schaefer
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 8:14:26 PM
> Subject: Re: an experiment
>
> - Original Message
>
> > From: Davanum Srinivas
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 8:07:50 PM
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Brett Porter wrote:
>> We have finalised the proposal with the additional committer and it has now
>> been posted for a couple of weeks, so I'd like to put it to a vote.
...
> Obviously +1 from me.
>
> Would anybody else like to weigh in?
Who, me?
+1 :)
--
We
> -Original Message-
> From: Brett Porter [mailto:br...@porterclan.net] On Behalf Of Brett
> Porter
> Sent: Thursday, 12 August 2010 10:31 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] NPanday to enter the incubator
>
>
>
> On 07/08/2010, at 1:21 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
>
On 07/08/2010, at 1:21 AM, Brett Porter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have finalised the proposal with the additional committer and it has now
> been posted for a couple of weeks, so I'd like to put it to a vote.
>
> With the weekend included, I'll tally the votes after 5 days (120 hours).
>
Obviousl
- Original Message
> From: Davanum Srinivas
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 8:07:50 PM
> Subject: Re: an experiment
>
> Joe,
>
> Can they not +1 it either? :) seriously, it would be a
> bit hard to track 2 levels of ipmc members
If we're concerned abou
Joe,
Can they not +1 it either? :) seriously, it would be a bit hard to track 2
levels of ipmc members
-- dims
On 08/11/2010 07:24 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
- Original Message
From: Davanum Srinivas
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 6:28:17 PM
Subject: Re:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
>> The first idea should be fairly straightforward: that for
>> the projects I participate in (so far thrift and sis), that
>> the IPMC delegates to the PPMC the decision-making process
>> for voting in new committers: b
- Original Message
> From: Davanum Srinivas
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 6:28:17 PM
> Subject: Re: an experiment
>
> Ant,
>
> My personal opinion (and i am hoping!) was that such individuals
> from ppmc's who end up in ipmc would help build bridges
>
Ant,
My personal opinion (and i am hoping!) was that such individuals from ppmc's who end up in ipmc would help build bridges
between podlings and will help get lessons learned (when any ppmc has issues/problems/roadblocks) back to their ppmc.
This is one area where i've seen people struggle, f
- Original Message
> From: ant elder
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 6:16:16 PM
> Subject: Re: an experiment
>
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>
> > The second idea is more controversial: to hold IPMC votes to
> > admit all s
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> The second idea is more controversial: to hold IPMC votes to
> admit all significant committers to those projects to the IPMC
> itself. The purpose of this concept is to allow those who
> best know the codebase to provide IPMC oversight ove
- Original Message
> From: Joe Schaefer
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 5:29:55 PM
> Subject: Re: an experiment
>
> - Original Message
>
> > From: Donald Woods
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 5:19:03 PM
> >
On 08/11/2010 05:19 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
On 8/11/10 1:45 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
So. Following some advice given to me by Sam Ruby,
I'd like to start experimenting with different organizational
and procedural approaches to the projects I participate in
here. What I want to do is to see h
- Original Message
> From: Donald Woods
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 5:19:03 PM
> Subject: Re: an experiment
>
>
>
> On 8/11/10 1:45 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > So. Following some advice given to me by Sam Ruby,
> > I'd like to start experimenting
On Aug 11, 2010, at 4:14 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message
>
>> From: Davanum Srinivas
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 5:07:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: an experiment
>>
>> +1 to IPMC delegates to the PPMC the decision-making
>> process for
On 8/11/10 1:45 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> So. Following some advice given to me by Sam Ruby,
> I'd like to start experimenting with different organizational
> and procedural approaches to the projects I participate in
> here. What I want to do is to see how far I can push
> the envelope on the
- Original Message
> From: Davanum Srinivas
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 5:07:33 PM
> Subject: Re: an experiment
>
> +1 to IPMC delegates to the PPMC the decision-making
> process for voting in new committers (one question,
> would they need an ACK
+1 to IPMC delegates to the PPMC the decision-making process for voting in new committers (one question, would they need
an ACK from IPMC - similar to how PMC's send a note to the board for an ACK for new pmc members)?
In the 2nd question, "significant committers", are we asking mentors to ident
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 15:30, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
>>> [...]
>>> So yes, development activity is low.
>>>
>>> OTOH patches get applied and releases are made if there is anything to
>>> fix. I'm sure we could have gotten more people to vote if it had been
>>> necessary on
Hi Guys,
>> [...]
>> So yes, development activity is low.
>>
>> OTOH patches get applied and releases are made if there is anything to
>> fix. I'm sure we could have gotten more people to vote if it had been
>> necessary on the last release, it just wasn't necessary so people
>> preferred to wor
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:12, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 2010-08-11, Niall Pemberton wrote:
>
>> The real point though is not size - its *activity*.
>
> [absolutely correct observation of low activity snipped]
>
>> My concern is if RAT goes TLP then it may be a small step away from
>> not being a
Given that the IPMC can still veto a decision of the podling, I like this idea.
+1
LieGrue,
strub
- Original Message
> From: "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)"
> To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
> Sent: Wed, August 11, 2010 7:49:45 PM
> Subject: Re: an experiment
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> > The
Hi Joe,
> The first idea should be fairly straightforward: that for
> the projects I participate in (so far thrift and sis), that
> the IPMC delegates to the PPMC the decision-making process
> for voting in new committers: basically rolling back the clock
> to May 1, 2007 on guides/ppmc.html.
+1
So. Following some advice given to me by Sam Ruby,
I'd like to start experimenting with different organizational
and procedural approaches to the projects I participate in
here. What I want to do is to see how far I can push
the envelope on the whole notion of empowerment and
self-governance in
On 2010-08-11, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> The real point though is not size - its *activity*.
[absolutely correct observation of low activity snipped]
> My concern is if RAT goes TLP then it may be a small step away from
> not being able to get 3 PMC votes.
I understand that and share the concern
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Let me repeat: where does it say a TLP must be "at least THIS size" ?
>
> Answer: nowhere.
>
> Small projects are just fine. We're looking at the overall community
> and the people to shepherd that community. Those are the RAT
> developers and u
31 matches
Mail list logo
