Greg Stein wrote:
RTC versus CTR is clearly a religious debate. There are a large number of
> successful and vibrant Apache communities using each paradigm. I don't
>
"Apache communities" is (IMO) a very important point here. I believe that
Apache communities understand the nuances of peer res
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
> >...
>
> > As far as I can tell from the proposals and DISCUSS, RTC was the process
> > already present in the community proposed. If the -1 folks would like to
> > convince the community to
Geez, dude. Ease up. "all of us" only meant the four of us voting -1.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Pierre Smits wrote:
> What? Is this now an implicit ASF incubation policy? So, if I understand
> you correctly, you want to exclude potentials from the incubation process
> based on this? And yo
FWIW, I see the fact that there were some -1s in the vote as a positive thing
in ensuring that the concerns behind the -1s will be addressed. I mean that the
community will feel a pressure to be inclusive to “prove” that RTC is not an
impediment to community growth.
It stands to reason that att
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:53 AM, Jacques Nadeau wrote:
> ...If the process is 3x+1 and more +1 than -1, this vote passes as Henry
> stated...
It does pass indeed.
>From a community point of view however, -1s need to be taken into
account and translated into some statement or planned action, that
What? Is this now an implicit ASF incubation policy? So, if I understand
you correctly, you want to exclude potentials from the incubation process
based on this? And you don't want this potential have their own way of
working?
Even though 18 peers voted +1 for having this potential entering the AS
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Jacques Nadeau wrote:
>...
> It's great that Greg and the others who disagree cast their dissenting
> votes. That doesn't mean that we should throw out process. If the process
> is 3x+1 and more +1 than -1, this vote passes as Henry stated. Greg even
> stated (if I
A few thoughts from a 'bystander':
It's great that Greg and the others who disagree cast their dissenting
votes. That doesn't mean that we should throw out process. If the process
is 3x+1 and more +1 than -1, this vote passes as Henry stated. Greg even
stated (if I understand his statements correc
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> The only mention of consensus I could find is in the actual development of
> the actual
> proposal. I’m sure one could argue that that implies that whether consensus
> is achieved
> is by the vote, but with a group as large as the IPMC it woul
The only mention of consensus I could find is in the actual development of the
actual proposal. I’m sure one could argue that that implies that whether
consensus is achieved is by the vote, but with a group as large as the IPMC it
would be horrible to allow a single vote to block a podling from
On 1 December 2015 at 15:22, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Henry Robinson wrote:
> >...
>
> > On 1 December 2015 at 14:46, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> >
> >...
>
> > > Given as we have no actual incubator policy that states whether
> > > consensus is required or not - or at leas
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Henry Robinson wrote:
>...
> On 1 December 2015 at 14:46, Daniel Gruno wrote:
>
>...
> > Given as we have no actual incubator policy that states whether
> > consensus is required or not - or at least none that I could find - one
> > would assume this falls back
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Sean Busbey wrote:
>...
> As far as I can tell from the proposals and DISCUSS, RTC was the process
> already present in the community proposed. If the -1 folks would like to
> convince the community to change its approach then they should take that up
> with the co
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> On 12/01/2015 11:37 PM, Henry Robinson wrote:
> > On 1 December 2015 at 14:32, Bertrand Delacretaz >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Henry Robinson
> wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> Binding -1s (4):
> >>> Greg Stein
> >>>
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Julian Hyde wrote:
> Greg,
>
> May I suggest a compromise? Enter incubation with no explicit commit
> policy and let the community choose a commit policy if and when they see
> fit.
>
The community already discussed it and made a choice. They'll make the same
choi
On 1 December 2015 at 14:46, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> On 12/01/2015 11:37 PM, Henry Robinson wrote:
> > On 1 December 2015 at 14:32, Bertrand Delacretaz >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Henry Robinson
> wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> Binding -1s (4):
> >>> Greg Stein
> >>> Ra
On 12/01/2015 11:37 PM, Henry Robinson wrote:
> On 1 December 2015 at 14:32, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Henry Robinson wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Binding -1s (4):
>>> Greg Stein
>>> Ralph Goers
>>> Roman Shaposhnik
>>> Konstantin Boudnik ...
>>
>>
Greg,
May I suggest a compromise? Enter incubation with no explicit commit policy and
let the community choose a commit policy if and when they see fit.
Julian
> On Dec 1, 2015, at 2:35 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec
On 1 December 2015 at 14:32, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Henry Robinson wrote:
> > ...
> > Binding -1s (4):
> > Greg Stein
> > Ralph Goers
> > Roman Shaposhnik
> > Konstantin Boudnik ...
>
> Please indicate how the issues that are behind these -1
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Henry Robinson wrote:
> > ...
> > Binding -1s (4):
> > Greg Stein
> > Ralph Goers
> > Roman Shaposhnik
> > Konstantin Boudnik ...
>
> Please indicate how the issues that are behind these
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Henry Robinson wrote:
> ...
> Binding -1s (4):
> Greg Stein
> Ralph Goers
> Roman Shaposhnik
> Konstantin Boudnik ...
Please indicate how the issues that are behind these -1s have been addressed.
I might have missed something, just had a quick loo
Thanks Owen (and apologies for missing your vote: I swore I saw it at the
time, then checked the thread twice and somehow missed it).
The updated results are below:
Binding +1s (18):
Todd Lipcon
Arvind Prabhakar
Chris Mattmann
Julien Le Dem
Carl Steinbach
Brock Noland
Not that it changes the result, but I also voted +1.
https://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg52096.html
.. Owen
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Henry Robinson wrote:
> This vote is now closed and passes with 17 binding +1 votes, 7 non-binding
> +1 votes and 4 binding -1 vo
This vote is now closed and passes with 17 binding +1 votes, 7 non-binding
+1 votes and 4 binding -1 votes.
Thanks to everyone that voted!
Here is my tally of the votes:
Binding +1s (17):
Todd Lipcon
Arvind Prabhakar
Chris Mattmann
Julien Le Dem
Carl Steinbach
Brock Nolan
24 matches
Mail list logo
