Just to point out the obvious...
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 5:33 PM Justin Mclean
wrote:
>
> Some suggestions:
> 1. Ask all inactive IPMC if they want to continue being on the IPMC and
> see who steps down. Being inactive they are probably not following this
> list so we need to identify and send ea
Yup. This seems concordant with most of the GPL exception clauses on
generated output. That is fine, we don't prohibit through use of GPL for
target architecture buildable tarballs of sources, so long as the consumers
of those source tarballs are not imposed restrictions beyond the AL 2.0.
Many pr
Would it be helpful if incubator submissions came with a [IP Review]
subject line? All accepted incubator and already-evaluated TLP records
would still be presented, with a [IP Recorded] or [IP Reviewed] subject
line.
I suspect it is helpful to show all incoming projects the conclusion of
other TL
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 8:26 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> > On Jun 5, 2018, at 4:53 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacre...@codeconsult.ch> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 9:30 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >> ...In other words, unless the code is for a podling, the IPMC shouldn't
> be involve
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 6:06 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
> IMHO, IP Clearance in of itself is confusing. For software being
> relicensed (under an SGA) it shouldn't be needed.
Well, it is needed, even where that devolves to "has all SGA paperwork
for this incoming contribution and corresponding ICL
On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Marvin Humphrey
wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 8:13 AM, John D. Ament
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 11:02 AM Marvin Humphrey
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 7:21 AM, John D. Ament
> >> wrote:
> >> > All,
> >> >
> >> > Did anyone change somethi
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Reza Rahman wrote:
> Yep, understood. We will give it an honest effort
>
No doubt, we appreciate the sincerity.
Note that there are multiple aspect that would require license grants and
provisions
that complicate any Java-ecosystem grant to the ASF. It isn't str
The technical reason for "no solo projects" that already answer your
question
lies in the ASF governance model, which is based on meritocracy where all
who participate in the project are expected to be part of its oversite
(there is
no allowance for a "BDFL" (Benevolent Dictator For Life) managemen
Agreed this is in the scope of comdev, but in terms of the data collection
and aggregation process, you have many willing test subjects aggregated on
this list, which sure beats broadcast mails to pmcs@.
On Jan 10, 2016 7:15 PM, "Ross Gardler" wrote:
> jira is exactly how I used to run GSOC, I th
On Jan 10, 2016 4:26 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Changing subject so not to pollute the Singa VOTE thread.
>
> So it seem the GPL with this special exception are OK to distribute.
[3][4]
>
> Looks like our documentation may need to be updated/clarified in a couple
of places.
>
> For ins
On Jan 9, 2016 14:58, "Ross Gardler" wrote:
>
> Everyone should read the subject and reset.
+1 - the original subject line corresponds to that projects interested in
new activity.
3-5 times a week a student or IT hobbiest or professional developer or
website designer pings dev@community.a.o aski
On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Chris Nauroth
wrote:
>
> As a Concerted mentor, I agree with the concern about lack of activity. I
> think this was a difficult month for the project considering both the
> general drop in participation and the typical drop in activity that we
> should expect to h
On Jan 7, 2016 20:48, "John D. Ament" wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I wanted to get others opinions. Currently Freemarker creates two
> artifacts - one is a GAE compatible module, the other is a regular
> library. They are created from two distinct branches in their SCM. Are
> those artifacts voted on to
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 10:19 AM, Thorsten Schöning
wrote:
> Guten Tag William A Rowe Jr,
> am Freitag, 8. Januar 2016 um 15:33 schrieben Sie:
>
> > Forty forks means 40 prospective committers.
>
> Or just people, like some of those currently involved, which change
>
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:31 AM, wrote:
> As a user (and small time contributor once) of log4cxx, I would vote for a
> move to a central hosting on github. I don't mind what happens to the
> project in terms of the apache organization as I use log4cxx as a
> stand-alone library - and I guess many
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:08 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
> On 11/02/2015 06:59 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm one of the mentors of Sentry, which has been in incubation for some
>> time. The project has progressed in a number of ways, but my largest
>> concern is that the podling is
On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Marvin Humphrey
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 3:41 AM, John D. Ament
> wrote:
> >> I don't think anyone in the incubator is begging to be responsible. We
> >> just need a new process defined.
> >
> > Actual
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:45 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >
> >> First and foremost, I have not followed this thread almost at
> >> all. I've been at ATO2015 and then traveling.
> >>
> >> Wha
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> > On Aug 20, 2015, at 10:23 AM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >> Coming in late.
> >>
> >> A snapshot is not a release. Licenses "kick in" at distribution/
> >> release.
> >
>
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> > On Aug 20, 2015, at 11:19 PM, William A Rowe Jr
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> A snapshot is not a release. Licenses "kick
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> > On Aug 20, 2015, at 8:27 PM, William A Rowe Jr
> wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 20, 2015 08:52, "Jim Jagielski" wrote:
> >>
> >> Coming in late.
> >>
> >> A snaps
On Aug 21, 2015 1:54 AM, "Greg Stein" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
> >...
>
> > So, in the strictest sense, distributions that make minor changes for
> > their distribution should call it Bar powered by Apache Foo in order to
> > differentiate it from an offic
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:52 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> A snapshot is not a release. Licenses "kick in" at distribution/
> release.
>
Lets just imagine if Jim, VP Legal is actually correct in his
interpretation, and that there are no AL 2.0 licenses applicable to our
source code repositories,
yet.
You still didn't comment on the license under which the repository is
licensed, so this wasn't a terribly helpful post.
From: William A Rowe Jr<mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net>
> Sent: 8/20/2015 7:17 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Christopher wrote:
> It sounds to me like you're saying that the license under which code is
> offered (to anybody who encounters it) is independent of the license
> declaration attached to the project.
>
No, the license is that which was granted by the author, a
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Benson Margulies
wrote:
> This thread started as a discussion of Linux distros and trademarks.
> Perhaps I could try to return it there?
>
> If a distro takes a release of Apache X, compiles it with minimal changes
> that adapt it to the environment, and distribut
On Aug 20, 2015 8:19 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote:
>
> On Aug 20, 2015 7:39 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 8/20/15, 5:27 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote:
> >
> > >It is generally AL code all the time
On Aug 20, 2015 7:39 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8/20/15, 5:27 PM, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote:
>
> >It is generally AL code all the time. I don't know where you invented a
> >'kick-in' concept, but unless the committers are
On Aug 20, 2015 08:52, "Jim Jagielski" wrote:
>
> Coming in late.
>
> A snapshot is not a release. Licenses "kick in" at distribution/
> release.
I want to fix FUD before it infests the rafters and subfloor. I really
have never read something so stupid or ill phrased...
Every contributor commit
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:06 AM, William A Rowe Jr
> wrote:
>
> > There are some special things here we do have absolute control over. If a
> > project wants to provide the 'official' build, why not start si
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:39 AM, Stephen Connolly <
stephen.alan.conno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We could define a hierarchy of right to use the mark: pmc has ultimate
> right, if the pmc are not producing a packaging for that system then the
> developers of the packaging system have the right to def
On Aug 9, 2015 8:33 PM, "Roman Shaposhnik" wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> >> ...is Apache Brand meant to protect *any* possible object/binary
> >> artifact or only those that PMC actually care
On Aug 9, 2015 4:05 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > Are tests are part of the release?
>
> If they are included as source code in the released artefact yes :-)
Well put. The Apache HTTP Server has several 'test' modules which are
embedded in release tarballs. The 'test framework' is an
On Aug 7, 2015 3:20 PM, "Benson Margulies" wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Gregory Chase wrote:
> > Does "...based on Apache Hadoop" require a clear dependency notation as
to
> > which versions of Apache component releases are part of the commercial
> > distribution?
>
> No, it cannot
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 7:50 PM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> while answering a question on release policies and ALv2
> I've suddenly realized that I really don't know what is the
> legal basis for enforcing release policies we've got
> documented over here:
>http://www.apache.org/dev/rel
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:54 PM, John D. Ament
wrote:
> This link is only available to ActiveMQ PMC Members. Do you have a members
> link?
> Ideally I'm just looking for a link back to the CCLA/SGA.
>
In every case where you encounter this...
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 7:28 AM Gary Tully wrote:
I am a proposed mentor associated with Pivotal, well away from my own
technology and engineering teams. I'm not good enough with darts to hit
that side of the org chart from this side of the room, but really would like
to see the contribution succeed, so I'm approaching this as always with
my ASF
Ross,
do we evaluate source code at the incubation-entry level, or do we evaluate
proposed development goals and development community propositions? I'm
curious about your thoughts.
Yours,
Bill
On Apr 13, 2015 12:16 AM, "Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)" <
ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Pivota
Understand there is a radical difference between majority, consensus and
unanimity. The HTTP Server project has successfully operated by unanimity,
although many of us have experience of having the single holdout block progress.
I don't believe majority is sufficient in these sorts of matters.
This seems very odd to me, certainly unusual among Apache projects.
The -dev and -user lists (and even general@incubator) are used to announce that
a release candidate is available and should be tested for readiness to become
an actual release. Some projects use differently-numbered alpha and bet
On 5/9/2012 6:34 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Jukka:
>
> Thanks my friend. The way you have been running the IPMC during your
> tenure as chair addresses just about everything I have ever bitched
> about regarding the Incubator. I really appreciate what you are doing
> and the time it must take to
On 5/4/2012 1:27 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> In the Board agenda, we have a line where each Director can state they have
> reviewed the report (before the meeting). They can also append queries and
> comments. Little mini-discussions kinda happen in those comments.
>
> Point here is: provide a similar
On 4/19/2012 9:03 AM, Stephen Connolly wrote:
>
> I have a non-ASF hosted project (jszip.org hosted on github in case you are
> interested), which I am hoping to build enough of a developer community
> (currently it is just me) around to be able to bring it into the ASF.
>
> To this end, I am lic
On 4/15/2012 5:46 PM, Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez wrote:
> we have made two releases following
> the ASF policies and guidelines. Thanks to the mentorship we have received
> through this period, we have learnt to self-govern and grow our community
> using accepted Apache practices.
As noted by oth
On 4/17/2012 3:57 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> -1
>
> Unless I am mistaken JSPWiki has not yet made a release under the
> Apache license:
>
> "Release 2.9 as first Apache release"
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JSPWIKI-717
http://www.apache.org/dist/incubator/jspwiki/
Apparently this was
On 4/12/2012 2:37 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Dave Fisher wrote on Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 23:48:05 -0700:
>> Sorry, I can't remain mute, but I offended anyone, sorry, but this was
>> wrongly done. I don't know a better way
>
> What about expanding the membership of ooo-security@? Currently it ha
On 4/12/2012 9:05 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Jukka Zitting
> wrote:
>>
>> Anyway, it sounds like the case was handled reasonably well under some
>> fairly challenging constraints, so I'm not too worried about details
>> like this as long as this remains a one-off spec
On 4/12/2012 4:30 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> That being said I will again summarise what I believe the IPMC can
> take away from this:
>
> - all mentors should be included in the process, not a subset
That's on the mentors of a given project to decide. I can see where
this could be a hardship
On 4/12/2012 2:59 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>> On 12 April 2012 07:48, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Sorry, I can't remain mute, but I offended anyone, sorry, but this was
>>> wrongly done. I don't know a better way
Don't, these conc
On 4/11/2012 2:36 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>
> It should be noted though that even though the /dist/incubator/ooo
> space was used to distribute these patches, they were and are not
> officially blessed by the Incubator PMC on behalf of the ASF.
>
> Should a similar case arise in the future, I'd
On 4/6/2012 10:17 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:43 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> wrote:
>> On 3/31/2012 8:43 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Ross Gardler
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There isn't (to my knowled
On 3/31/2012 8:43 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>
>> There isn't (to my knowledge), I can imagine an increasing number of
>> projects wanting such a thing though. Unless someone tells me I'm
>> wrong and we already have one would you be interested in
On 3/1/2012 9:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> I don't know what statement Roy is referring to, so I won't challenge
> it directly. Instead I will ask that people work together to find out
> what processes are right for the ASF at this point in time, even if
> these processes are different than the one
On 3/1/2012 9:08 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> Why don't you stop with your passive-aggressive bullshit, and read the
> thread over on legal-discuss where we talked about fixing the "short
> form" IP Clearance process. The IP policies have not changed, but they
> *should*, along the lines Roy suggests
On 3/1/2012 4:17 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Mar 1, 2012, at 9:20 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you are signing up to do that ip-clearance, since it doesn't
>> seem to be coming from the committer.
>
> IP clearance for an existing committer is
On 2/26/2012 10:03 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> --8<---
> [X] +1 the RAT community feels ready to graduate as Apache Creadur
> ---
Cheers!
---
On 2/14/2012 5:16 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> I propose a JIRA project for the incubator as a better way to recruit PMC
> members for tasks such as granting karma to new committers.
+1. Shown to be highly effective at legal and infrastructure.
-
On 2/13/2012 1:14 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> Hi Noel,
>
> Thanks, for the record, the VOTE passes
>
> On Feb 13, 2012, at 9:30 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
>> I believe that we can call this vote, now, and request that the Board
>> install Jukka as the new PMC Chair.
Action item: Boa
With all three other candidates having checked it, sure looks like
we found consensus!
> [X] +1 Recommend Jukka Zitting for the IPMC chair position.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additio
On 2/9/2012 11:29 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> (1) Why is the IPMC different from other PMCs and holding a personnel VOTEs
> on a public ML?
Just to clarify this single issue; by rights, adding committers and
committee members is a personal issue about those individuals. But
choosing a represent
On 2/9/2012 10:49 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Feb 9, 2012, at 11:10 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, if there's an election, the fair thing is to include all candidates
>> and see who gets the majority. A vote on just one candidate is odd.
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
> I suggest that this VO
On 2/6/2012 1:33 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
> It seems to me that one of the ideas would require some board
> assistance: Roy's 'IPMC as board' structure, in which, it seems to me,
> podlings (sooner or later) take binding votes on their own releases
> and committers, but the board delegates su
On 2/6/2012 1:33 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Bill has also been the most vehement opponent of one of the
> possible evolutionary strategies: to elect people to the PMC on the
> strength (only) of their ability and willingness to supervise single
> podlings.
Let's be clear, it wasn't an election
On 2/6/2012 12:29 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
>> My biggest problem is that the proposal moves undefined responsibilities to
>> ComDev while none of the candidates have actually spoken to ComDev about
>> this
>
> As a comdev PMC memb
On 2/6/2012 12:49 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> On 02/05/2012 11:40 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>> If the board decides to go that way, I am happy to see Chris in charge
>> of the transition.
>
> It's not the board's decision to make. The folks in the Incubator need
> to decide what they as volunteer
On 2/5/2012 1:40 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
> Just to set the record straight and get out of the way, *my* position
> is that I do not feel particularly qualified to lead the charge in
> presiding over the disassembly of the incubator. My alternative
> proposal is not my 'election platform' --
On 2/5/2012 12:37 AM, Luciano Resende wrote:
>
> One thing that is not clear on the proposal is that it says that
> releases will be responsibility of the TLPs, but it doest not suggest
> or require that the actual existing ASF members that are part of the
> TLP have to vote on the release. This m
On 2/5/2012 10:20 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
>
> No. With all respect for Noel - we have discussed this multiple times
> now. There is a need for a change because some administrative stuff
> was delayed. There is a need for a change because on of us demanded it
> (Bill if I remember right). Wh
On 2/4/2012 3:05 AM, ant elder wrote:
>
> I also agree with a comment from Sam on another thread about wouldn't
> it be possible to get to just a single chair candidate. That doesn't
> seem to be happening yet so as there are all these plans going on to
> get rid of the Incubator altogether can't
On 2/4/2012 12:45 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> If it is different from Chris's then I think Bill should write his proposal.
Dave, mine is not difference in process, substance or requirements.
Chris and 7 board members are now familiar with the delta, which is
really not up for incubator to choose.
On 2/4/2012 2:07 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
> [offlist]
(sorry, trying to respond individually to keep down the noise, stupid
trackpad+palm of my thumb sometimes lets notes fly prematurely. My bad.)
-
To unsubscr
[offlist]
On 2/4/2012 7:29 AM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>
> On 2/4/12 12:28 AM, "William A. Rowe Jr." wrote:
>
>> On 2/3/2012 9:01 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>>>
>>> Personally, I feel that walking in the door as a full PMC with authority
&
On 2/3/2012 9:16 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 4 February 2012 01:56, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> Pass all responsibility for mentoring to the incubating projects and
>> the members, and responsibility for ensuring they are mentored to the
>> board.
>
> The proj
On 2/3/2012 8:41 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Lets not forget that the model referred to *included* the IPMC. The
> IPMC once had a useful function, it was a safety net for fledgling
> communities.
The IPMC never served that purpose. Projects were scuttled even in
its first year.
The IPMC served to
On 2/3/2012 9:01 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>
> Personally, I feel that walking in the door as a full PMC with authority
> could be just as problematic in the long run as not granting it once the
> community has demonstrated viability.
I think that everyone here agrees. These would not be '
On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though. Incubator is very
>> tedious. Very little is resolved. Deck chairs are shuffled. But at
>> the end of the day, projects don't have ownership of their code, many
>> micro-managers do, we aren't nec
On 2/3/2012 7:47 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:27 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>
>> The existing problem remains the revised problem. Any solution applicable
>> to the IPMC intervening in a dysfunctional PPMC applies to the Champion and
>>
On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>
> I thought I did. The proposal that Chris put forth seems to make podlings
> formal PMCs that report to the board simply so they have authority to vote on
> releases, add new committers, etc.. My proposal is to give podlings the
> authority to mak
On 2/3/2012 7:38 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> All nominees have said they back the radical reform plan. That plan as
> it currently stands reads, to me, as "nuke the IPMC and pass all
> responsibility for ensuring projects are adequately mentored to
> ComDev."
Ross, I'm not a candidate. But I ce
On 2/3/2012 7:19 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 4 February 2012 01:06, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> The main problem I see, and what Joe seems to complain about a lot, is that
>> mentors seem to fail at mentoring. Creating a
>> project that reports to the board whose mentors stop mentoring just pushes
>
On 2/3/2012 7:06 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> Do any of the candidates want to take a little time to define the role they
> see for ComDev?
Sounds like additional documentation for the proposal
Committee: Previous responsibility <---> Revised responsibility
_ __
On 2/3/2012 7:06 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> It would be perfectly reasonable to me for the IPMC to find other ways for a
> PPMC to have binding votes.
I don't see a reasonable alternative structure. Feel free to propose one.
I explored the idea of having subcommittees make these releases. Tha
On 2/3/2012 5:55 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> "Disbanding" the PMC seems to me to be a very reactionary approach to the
> problem.
That's because disbanding the IPMC isn't in response to /that/ problem,
so little wonder you are confused.
Disbanding the IPMC, and making PPMC contributors part of
On 2/3/2012 4:46 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>> On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead
>>> of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incub
On 2/3/2012 12:51 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>
> So that everyone affected by these proposals has the opportunity to engage in
> the discussion, I recommend that we pull these out of e-mail for a while and
> ask everyone who has a new "plan" for the incubator to draft proposals on the
> wi
On 2/3/2012 11:47 AM, Karl Wright wrote:
> +1 on this. Work the bugs out before everyone transitions.
One doesn't preclude the other. As I wrote in response to an almost
entirely different thread, Podlings are accountable to the Incubator
PMC. A Project, Incubating would be accountable to the p
On 2/3/2012 7:58 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> One thing I would like to be bantered about:
>
> Long ago, it was customary to have a single mentor for a podling.
> Nowadays, the feelings are the more, the merrier.
By the same measure, there is a role of Champion. If we can avoid
fracturing that rol
On 2/3/2012 8:07 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
>> It seems to me that the proposed new scheme will take quite a bit of
>> setting up. There is some writing to do. More to the point, if I were
>> the board, I would want to pilot the new scheme for
On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
>> :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
>> thoughts/positioning below.
>
> While I agree that in an ideal
On 2/2/2012 11:38 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>>
>> However, please note that the re-org still has a position that is at least
>> analogous. You would not be getting off so easily. ;-)
>
> :) Nope, it doesn't actually. Please read the thread carefully. That is
> what is being suggested
On 2/2/2012 7:56 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> I have a lateral thought. Assuming for the moment that Chris has
> accepted or will accept a nomination, why not recommend *both* of us
> to the board as co-chairs? The IPMC is special. New members pop up all
> the time and need to be fed to the board
On 2/2/2012 10:20 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> Thanks Christian.
>
> I'll accept, thanks for your kind words, and for those of Marvin and
> Joe, and the comments from Benson and others.
>
> I will note that should I be elected into this role, I will state that
> I don't intend to be in
On 2/2/2012 8:15 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
> I support your direction of delegating more authority to podlings by
> identifying qualified contributors and adding them to the IPMC. I also
> support the general direction of Bill's proposal to demolish the
> incubator
Credit where credit is due,
On 2/2/2012 12:49 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>
> OK. If that VP isn't a flow-through and isn't visible when things are working
> optimally, then why have him/her?
Because when the process needs revision, and it will, the board doesn't want to
revise it. ComDev shouldn't have to revise i
On 2/2/2012 12:27 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>
> I guess the key difference between this small (but important) part of
> our interpretation of this Incubator fix resolution that we're discussing
> is the following:
>
> You (and maybe Greg?) feel that you need 1 VP guy (and perhaps
> a
Wow... a post that was too long even for me :) We might want to break
this down into a couple of distinct topic threads for simplicities sake.
Anyways, just one commment;
On 2/2/2012 10:56 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>
> On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:38 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> I can easily s
On 2/1/2012 6:52 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
>> don't we also have jukka?
>
> Jukka expressed (to be found somewhere in the archives) he does not
> need additonal workload at the moment. In addition he is already
> JackRabbit Chair,
On 2/1/2012 5:11 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>
> On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:25 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>
>> I'd modify your proposal just a smidge. Keep an Incubator VP with a very
>> small
>> operational committee just to help move the podling t
On 2/1/2012 5:14 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>
> On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:52 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>>
>> It seems to me that this ups the ante quite a bit on the accidental
>> argument I started about mentor qualifications. The board absolutely
>> does not want to have to provide direct
On 2/1/2012 4:52 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> At the risk of seeming trite, +1, but ...
>
> This lengthy proposal shifts the supervision responsibility of
> podlings from an big IPMC to a set of mentors approved by the board at
> the advice of a small iPMC.
No. Forget IPMC. The VP, Project In
1 - 100 of 740 matches
Mail list logo
