RE: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream integration binary artifacts

sue) Ross -Original Message- From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 1:29 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream integration binary artifacts On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Ross Gardler (MS

RE: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream integration binary artifacts

People wanting to use snapshot releases can be expected to jump through hoops to install those snapshots. NuGet, like all package management solutions, is a convenience not a requirement. People can still manually download and install libraries manually. Putting snapshots in public repositories,

RE: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream integration binary artifacts

ion binary artifacts Le 24/06/15 14:04, Marvin Humphrey a écrit : > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) > wrote: >> There is nothing preventing "clearly identifiable non-release artifacts >> available to the general public". > The Releases Policy

RE: [DISCUSS] Communicating intent around non-release, downstream integration binary artifacts

There is nothing preventing "clearly identifiable non-release artifacts available to the general public". Many projects make automated nightly builds available for example. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Roman Shaposhnik Sent: ‎6/‎23

RE: Blog policy for poddlings

It's not ComDev is press@ Sent from my Windows Phone From: Roman Shaposhnik Sent: ‎5/‎29/‎2015 7:11 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Blog policy for poddlings This is all very much c

RE: You know what... Apache is just too complicated.

+1000 Sent from my Windows Phone From: Bertrand Delacretaz Sent: ‎5/‎19/‎2015 5:18 AM To: Incubator General Subject: Re: You know what... Apache is just too complicated. Hi Stefan, On Mon, May 18

RE: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC

I've often wondered why we don't open source more of the infra code. Maybe this is the reason. Perhaps we need a new "brand" for such projects. Something like "Apache Foo (Infra)". This would be similar to the "(Incubator)" branding. We could even adopt some of the same policies (e.g. no press

RE: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC

Ruby Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 10:04 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > > As for going straight to TLP I agree. Sam did say this was a possibility but > I believe he (rightly so) wants

RE: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC

shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman Shaposhnik Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 9:38 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > Not sure if your concern is diversity or scal

RE: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC

Not sure if your concern is diversity or scale, so I'll address both separately. If your concern is something else please be more explicit. Graduation does not require diversity of the PMC. It requires that the project be run according to the Apache Way which includes being open to any viewpoint

RE: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC

+1, that's what I was trying to convey. -Original Message- From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 27, 2015 7:05 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) < r

RE: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC

It's a tough one. We could be setting a precedence here that we absolutely do not want to set. On the other hand, it's problematic (not to mention simply ridiculous) if the foundation not being able to use Apache software because we don't pay for development and might want to submit a patch upst

RE: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC

Infra already supports Whimsy so having a TLP is irrelevant in that respect (although on reason Sam is doing this is because infra expressed a concern about maintaining a service that only had Sam working on it). Ross -Original Message- From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org] Sent: Thurs

RE: [DISCUSS] Geode Incubation proposal

@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman Shaposhnik Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 12:38 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Geode Incubation proposal On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > Pivotal are asking me to

RE: [DISCUSS] Geode Incubation proposal

Bill On Apr 13, 2015 12:16 AM, "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" < ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Pivotal are asking me to agree to an "evaluation license" which I > cannot view before I sign up. So I have to review the privacy policy first. > > Pivotal&#x

RE: [DISCUSS] Geode Incubation proposal

Pivotal are asking me to agree to an "evaluation license" which I cannot view before I sign up. So I have to review the privacy policy first. Pivotal's privacy policy goes a *long* way beyond the point I am comfortable with when getting open source software (or deciding whether I want to agree

RE: [DISCUSS] Geode Incubation proposal

Where "hand over the Geode name" also means hand over the domain name and GitHub organizations that have rather confusingly been launched in the last few days. I'd also like to be able to review the source referred to in the proposal without having to sign up to "the Pivotal network" - how can

RE: [POLL] Using this list to discuss pTLP proposals, ok?

My only concern is confusion over pTLP and incubator. That's a manageable concern but this lost is so large I fear it might keep recurring. Just a word of caution, not an objection. Sent from my Windows Phone From: jan i Sent: ‎3/‎22/‎2015

RE: IP Clearance Questions

1. CCLA is never used instead of an SGA, they serve different purposes. The SGA is for a body of work that pre-exists entry into the foundation. The CCLA is an optional document that says future work by named individuals can be contributed. 2. Yes (although secretary tries his best to CC the app

RE: Wave community may need our help

Don't worry Christian. Same thing for me last month, and someone else the month before. Signing the report is not a replacement for actually being involved. Sounds like you are doing a great job. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Christian Grobmeier

RE: [DISCUSS] Groovy Incubation proposal

+1 See C030 on our project maturity model http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html And some commentary on committer = someone who is committed rather than someone who commits code https://community.apache.org/contributors/ Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. A su

RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

a more cynical interpretation, but when I see that three votes from members are required that means that all other votes don't matter. On Mar 2, 2015 10:45 PM, "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" < ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Remember this is not a replacement for the IPMC

RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

Can you please remove the requirement for 3 legally independent PMC members. What we require is a PMC that operates as a meritocracy. This is possible even in a monoculture PMC. It's also possible to have the independent representatives that act in collusion. 3 independents was a useful yardsti

RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

eak for the minority, but as a non-Apache Member I would never be able to provide a binding vote in a pTLP. We just had a case where the 4 IPMC representatives are made up of 1 current IPMC Member, 2 IPMC non-members and 1 Member pending IPMC. On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:05 PM Ross Gardler (M

RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

How do you see yourself being limited in the support you can provide? Sent from my Windows Phone From: John D. Ament Sent: ‎3/‎2/‎2015 6:56 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org; Bertrand Delacretaz<

RE: pTLP process amendments

+1 either this pTLP idea is independent of the IPMC. Or it is not. We need to lose these mixed messages. It seems people are still using the same ten to represent different things. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Niclas Hedhman Sent:

RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

rted this thread about pTLP. That is all. On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) < ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Ok let me try again. > > I am in support of pTLP where it is clear it will work for a given > project. Sam makes a good point that if we

RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

e that. Otherwise, please STOP throwing uncertainty into the waters. -g On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:29 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) < ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Fair enough. I don't think I ever agreed they are orthogonal. In fact the > only concern I have consistent

RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > It's not unfair. I deliberately tried to say i don't want to distract from > the handover process. I though we all agreed that whatever pTLP is -- it is absolutely 100% orthogonal to the process that Incubator is in busines

RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > The board have asked for the IPMC to make recommendations. Is the precise nature of what being asked recorded anywhere? Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe,

RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

/‎23/‎2015 3:52 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > We don't need consensus from the board. We need data to allow the board to > eva

RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

The board have asked for the IPMC to make recommendations. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Roman Shaposhnik Sent: ‎2/‎23/‎2015 3:46 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next st

RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

We don't need consensus from the board. We need data to allow the board to evaluate properly. The IPMC is tasked with providing recommendations. Personally I'm waiting for the disruption a chair change brings to settle down and will then look forward to helping with some experimentation (I don'

RE: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment

ComDev docs are in the CMS. All committers have write access. PMC members have publish access. Ross -Original Message- From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:56 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experime

RE: [DISCUSS] Solicitation for IPMC Chair nomination

+1 (and on a personal note, thank you for making possible to, once again, avoid throwing my own hat into the ring). Ross -Original Message- From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 12:32 PM To: Incubator General Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] So

RE: my pTLP view

It's an *option* not the only route. Working for some but not others is just fine. Ross -Original Message- From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2015 11:23 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Cc: Chris Mattmann; Jim Jagielski Subject: Re: my pTLP view I c

RE: my pTLP view

And even in the strawman (at least how I wrote it) there is even less of a gap from today's model to the pTLP proposal under discussion here. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Greg Stein Sent: ‎1/‎25/‎2015 12:03 PM To: general@incubator.apa

RE: my pTLP view

What makes you think the PPMC today had more influence than the contributors to a pushing? Votes have been mentioned, but votes remain the same. Despite what people on this thread are saying PPMC members do not have a binding vote. That does not change. Besides, the whole thing is moot because

RE: my pTLP view

e: my pTLP view On Friday, January 23, 2015, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) < ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > As ASF member *should* know that empowering the ones doing the work is > the Apache Way. A good member who is a mentor will ensure that they > unblock anything that prev

RE: my pTLP view

, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > All that being said, while I will (and already did two years ago) > support some experimentation with the pTLP model I still feel that an > Incubator with teeth scales better. But we wouldn't know until we try. And tha

RE: my pTLP view

..@apache.org] Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 2:34 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: my pTLP view On Friday, January 23, 2015, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) < ross.gard...@microsoft.com > wrote: > A good mentor is a guide, not a manager. > > The proposals might seem top

RE: my pTLP view

A good mentor is a guide, not a manager. The proposals might seem top down, but when executed correctly, they are not. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Alex Harui Sent: ‎1/‎23/‎2015 12:06 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org

RE: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)

1/‎23/‎2015 1:22 AM To: Incubator General<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.) On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > The board do take on such an active task I'm not sure wha

RE: my pTLP view

I would support it as an experiment. I will support it because it is one of the few actionable suggestions on the table. My caution has been expressed elsewhere. So I'll summarize as a reminder: 1) I supported just such an experiment a couple of years ago. It didn't go well (not disastrous, bu

RE: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)

It doesn't need to be in the public report. I agree the shepherd model doesn't work here but I still maintain that doesn't mean it can't work. Accountability, responsibility and reward are what I believe are needed. I've made my suggestions as to how to provide all three Sent from my Windows P

RE: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)

proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.) On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > In the thread "Incubator report sign-off" I posted a mail at Mon 1/5/2015 > 4:34 PM, it has the following content (edited for brevity here)" Acknowledged. I apologize

RE: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)

general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.) On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 7:18 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > The board do take on such an active task. As someone who has been subscribed to board@apache for a long time and has

RE: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)

The board do take on such an active task. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Niclas Hedhman Sent: ‎1/‎21/‎2015 11:08 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Next steps for various proposals (men

RE: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)

us proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.) On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > We should not be focusing on who is/is not ticking a box on a report - it's > a red herring and therefore a distraction. > > We should be focusing on identifying and assis

RE: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)

We should not be focusing on who is/is not ticking a box on a report - it's a red herring and therefore a distraction. We should be focusing on identifying and assisting podlings that are not in receipt of adequate and appropriate mentoring. There is nothing else of importance. Microsoft Ope

RE: Is there a place I can programmatically pull in PPMC members?

@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Is there a place I can programmatically pull in PPMC members? This seems to get me the IPMC members, not the PPMC members of podlings. Am I misinterpreting the page? Regards, Alan > On Jan 20, 2015, at 11:04 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) > wrote: > > See the

RE: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)

As an IPMC member I have objected to this part of the report. As a Director I have already commented on the report that this practice is inappropriate. I will ask for that section to be struck from the minutes, we'll see if other directors agree. My comment on the report is: rg: I've already m

RE: Is there a place I can programmatically pull in PPMC members?

See the code behind Whimsy (https://whimsy.apache.org/technology.html) The part you looking for produces https://whimsy.apache.org/roster/committee/incubator Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation -Original Message- From: Alan D. Cabrera [mailto:l...@too

RE: When is an ICLA needed?

n 20, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Branko Čibej wrote: > > On 20.01.2015 17:16, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > >> I agree with Bertrand. Note whoever commits the patch is doing so > >> under > their ICLA. > > > > Really? That can't be right: one can't be

RE: When is an ICLA needed?

I agree with Bertrand. Note whoever commits the patch is doing so under their ICLA. In other words if someone feels it does not contain significant IP then they can commit. Paperwork is a barrier to entry which is simply not necessary for trivial contributions. Sent from my Windows Phone _

RE: Incubating with Apache Commons as champion?

It's not for the IPMC to decide commons policy. If they feel another mailing list is not appropriate that is their call. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Niclas Hedhman Sent: ‎1/‎20/‎2015 8:07 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org

RE: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)

My strawman, which included a board like IPMC, certainly wasn't about shutting out inconvenient IPMC members, that is simply a ridiculous a d insulting suggestion (if it wasn't intended in that way then fine, but it sure sounds like it). My strawman was partly about consensus, but mostly about

RE: Incubating with Apache Commons as champion?

I hear what Stian is saying about the noise in Commons. If the team feel its not going to work for them then the incubator might be the right route. IMHO there is no reason why you couldn't be sponsored by the commons PMC. You would still need the IPMC to clear releases but that means three IPMC

Reporting and releasing for Ripple

The Ripple community asked for a stay of execution before being moved to the attic, as was recommended by some. This was granted in November 2014 with a review in six months. No board report was submitted this month and no action has been taken with respect to the concerns I raised about releas

RE: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)

Jan 16, 2015, at 3:04 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) > wrote: > > Or we could just do it > > We debated plenty. Three proposals came out of it (two if you look at mine as > the strawman it was intended to be). > > Those proposals are not mutually exclusive. > > I

RE: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)

Or we could just do it We debated plenty. Three proposals came out of it (two if you look at mine as the strawman it was intended to be). Those proposals are not mutually exclusive. I say record them in the wiki. Run them for a while. Then compare against the problems document we drew up a cou

RE: What is "The Apache Way"?

The archive is the mailing list archives and issue trackers. If an authoritative answer is required then we have VPs who are empowered to make operational decisions relating to policy and a Board empowered to make community decisions (and oversee the operational side). As you say, we try not to

RE: What is "The Apache Way"?

That's already in progress as part of this year's budget planning :-) Of course this is distinct from policy. For example: Should the policy say projects are limited to items on the infra core services list? Ross Sent from my Windows Phone From: Shane Curcuru

RE: Final draft of IPMC report for January 2015

D. Cabrera<mailto:l...@toolazydogs.com> Sent: ‎1/‎14/‎2015 11:38 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: Final draft of IPMC report for January 2015 > On Jan 14, 2015, at 10:56 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) > wrote: > > Wha

RE: Final draft of IPMC report for January 2015

What does it mean to "didn't sign-off" does it mean they refused to sign-off or that they simply didn't tick a box? Does it mean they didn't even read the report or that they didn't tick a box? I've said it before, I see no value in having a "naughty list" like this. What I care about (with my

RE: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)

Please go ahead - apologies for not doing it myself I have access problems on the incubator wiki. Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation -Original Message- From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 9:22 AM To: g

RE: Next steps for various proposals (mentor re-boot, pTLP, etc.)

Thank you for volunteering to wikify my proposal - I appreciate it. Ross Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation -Original Message- From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman Shaposhnik Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 8:

RE: Clear expectations

n Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > Can you please expand on "I think the answer starts with the very > skepticism of top-down governance which has in large part kept us from > having clear rules up till now." > > I'm not clear o

RE: Clear expectations

Marvin, Can you please expand on "I think the answer starts with the very skepticism of top-down governance which has in large part kept us from having clear rules up till now." I'm not clear on what the "skepticism" is that you refer to as these threads have indicated that there are at least

RE: What is "The Apache Way"?

Marvin, it doesn't need "assigning". Just step up and do it. There may not be full consensus on the value of this, but I think there are enough people saying it has value to mean that it has some value. Note the overlapping mails from Jim. I think it makes a huge amount of sense to have budget

RE: What is "The Apache Way"?

r stepping up and offering to try to heard the sheep on this one. Ross -Original Message- From: David Nalley [mailto:da...@gnsa.us] Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 9:37 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: What is "The Apache Way"? On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:23

RE: What is "The Apache Way"?

Even better suggestion. Do you want to take it up with Sally directly? (and big thanks in advance) Sent from my Windows Phone From: Jim Jagielski Sent: ‎1/‎13/‎2015 9:33 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org

RE: What is "The Apache Way"?

Good suggestion. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Jim Jagielski Sent: ‎1/‎13/‎2015 9:33 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: What is "The Apache Way"? > > Perhaps it is time we hired a cont

RE: What is "The Apache Way"?

Well, David, I'm afraid you are the authoritative source on the policy you use as an example. If it's not documented and that's a problem then it's *your* problem. You could (given even more time to volunteer to the ASF, solve it however you like (e.g. Write the doc, ask the community to write i

RE: What is "The Apache Way"?

So I link to a document and say it contains the list of immutable items, acknowledge it is merely a signpost, and request contributions. Your response "that's not good enough", h Marvin you undertook to do the release requirements doc. You did huge amounts of work on it. All that is nee

RE: What is "The Apache Way"?

+1, I'll repeat one a little my previous mail and say "patches welcome" (as long as they keep the document simple - remember, it's a signpost document not a discussion or detail document - the discussion/detail documents should be linked from this one). "http://community.apache.org/projectIndep

RE: What is "The Apache Way"?

uff over there. Ross -Original Message- From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 11:19 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: What is "The Apache Way"? On 1/8/15, 10:49 AM, "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" wrote: >top do

RE: What is "The Apache Way"?

It's process vs. culture. We shouldn't get hung up on process. Our bylaws (as a foundation) dictate that the board set the formal policies. This is pretty much a requirement of the way we have to be structured to get 501c(3) status. Someone needs to be accountable. So, yes, the board votes on

RE: What is "The Apache Way"?

uot;The Apache Way"? On 1/8/15, 10:49 AM, "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" wrote: >top down rules you describe below - as you seem to be implying that >should not exist in the Apache Way apart from a few immutable areas and >I agree. But what are the few immutable area

RE: What is "The Apache Way"?

rsday, January 8, 2015 9:25 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: What is "The Apache Way"? On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) < ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > WTF? There have been presentations about the apache way at every > A

RE: proposal: mentor re-boot

8, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) < ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Chip is correct. The tools we use in board meetings make it easy for > us to see how many PMC members in a TLP resolution are members. If > there are not enough we will sometimes put the project

RE: proposal: mentor re-boot

On Jan 8, 2015, at 10:06 AM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) > wrote: > > +1 > > All we care about is that the podling has an active mentor who knows when to > ask for support and gets that support when they need it. Following that statement to a logical conclusion, all po

RE: proposal: mentor re-boot

Chip is correct. The tools we use in board meetings make it easy for us to see how many PMC members in a TLP resolution are members. If there are not enough we will sometimes put the project on an informal "watch list" (as well as ensuring appropriate people from the PMC go on the members watch

RE: proposal: mentor re-boot

pTLP adds a great deal of overhead to the board unless there is a review process somewhere else. I've posted on this before so will not repeat here beyond summarizing as moving responsibility for the problem does not fix the problem. I'm not seeing how this proposal fixes the problem either. Ho

RE: proposal: mentor re-boot

+1 All we care about is that the podling has an active mentor who knows when to ask for support and gets that support when they need it. Ross Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation -Original Message- From: Branko Čibej [mailto:br...@apache.org] Sent: T

RE: proposal: mentor re-boot

Sorry not caught up with the full thread so I will not critique the overall proposal until I have. However, I have a concern with the abolition of the champion role. I don't care about the title of the role, but the champion is much more than "merely a mentor who is publicly stating that s/he wi

RE: What is "The Apache Way"?

WTF? There have been presentations about the apache way at every ApacheCon for about 15 years (twice in most years). I personally give 5-10 such presentations a year (sometimes public sometimes not). I'm sure many others here do the same. The Apache Way is really simple. There are very few immut

RE: Incubator report sign-off

gt; >> On Jan 5, 2015, at 1:08 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) >> wrote: >> >> But the board is not responsible for any actions resulting from those >> reviews, the IPMC is. >> >> Ross >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Mattman

RE: Incubator report sign-off

ill since Ross' reply was one of the few pieces of feedback from the board, I'll do this one and then wait for others to chime in (Benson?). On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > This proposal is not necessarily flawed, but it is incomple

RE: Incubator report sign-off

e few pieces of feedback from the board, I'll do this one and then wait for others to chime in (Benson?). On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > This proposal is not necessarily flawed, but it is incomplete. Couldn't agree more. But! The whole point is

RE: Incubator report sign-off

haposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman Shaposhnik Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 1:52 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > But the board is not responsible for any actions resulting f

RE: Incubator report sign-off

But the board is not responsible for any actions resulting from those reviews, the IPMC is. Ross -Original Message- From: Mattmann, Chris A (3980) [mailto:chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov] Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 9:31 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Incubator report

RE: Reflections from the outgoing Chair

The problem I am concerned with is the lack of mentoring support in a small number of projects and the fact the IPMC doesn't handle those situations well. Other than that I agree with Marvin - the IPMC usually does a fantastic job Sent from my Windows Phone From:

RE: Process over Ego [Was: Re: Incubator report sign-off

Inviting those people to become members is a good idea (and in fact was agreed a long time ago when we brought the first non-members into the IPMC). I think we have a number of members now who started out as IPMC members. It is clear (at least to me) that anyone who proves themselves to be a goo

RE: Incubator report sign-off

over the report) but more that a simple checkbox doesn't mean everything's great. John On Tue Dec 30 2014 at 10:59:33 PM Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) < ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > John, > > Actually John I disagree with one of your examples (Ripple). This is >

RE: Incubator report sign-off

John, Actually John I disagree with one of your examples (Ripple). This is actually a case where things have gone as they would expect. The mail you link to is from me. I had previously made the IPMC aware of the issue prior to that email on the mailing list. I was asked if I was undertaking t

RE: Running an experiment with pTLP

I don't want to fan flames or point fingers, but at the same time I need to say this. Please read it as being intended to be constructive... This whole pTLP thing is not new. We conducted an experiment like the one proposed below some time ago. The outcome of that experiment was supposed to be

RE: Incubator report sign-off

+1 well said. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Benson Margulies Sent: ‎12/‎29/‎2014 6:25 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off I'd like to look at this through

RE: Incubator report sign-off

In Apache there is no such thing as a "Project Leader" The PMC Chair has no more authority over the project than anyone else. The PMC Chair absolutely does *not* have the power to dissolve the PMC. Only the Board of Directors have that authority and they will only do that at the request of the

RE: Incubator report sign-off

pache.org> Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off On 12/19/2014 02:00 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > Strawman: > > What if a mentor is *required* to be an active participant of the project. > That is contributing code, voting on releases and generally engaging with t

  1   2   >