Hi,
> MesaTEE report has been completed just a couple of days ago (starting from
> version 50 at November2019 page). It may be the reason that other mentors
> have not signed off yet.
Quite likely I didn’t check the date and assumed it has been submitted on time.
Looking at the report and the ma
Hi Justin,
MesaTEE report has been completed just a couple of days ago (starting from
version 50 at November2019 page). It may be the reason that other mentors
have not signed off yet.
Kind Regards,
Furkan KAMACI
On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 12:34 AM Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Good to see most
Hi,
Good to see most podlings have had at lease one mentor sign off. Only one
prodling Ratis is yet to get any mentor sign offs.
It would be good to see more signs off on these projects:
- Heron
- PageSpeed
- Tamaya
- MesaTEE
MesaTEE I’m a little conceded about as it has 6 mentors but so far on
Thanks Roman.
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Andrew Purtell
> wrote:
> >> One extra thing to note, that while we can *start* this comittee as
> > dedicated
> >>
> > to Incubating projects, it will be a very natural extension to get it
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
>> One extra thing to note, that while we can *start* this comittee as
> dedicated
>>
> to Incubating projects, it will be a very natural extension to get it
> involved
>>
> in monitoring all of TLPs, not just pTLPs.
>
> What problem exists tod
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
>> An addition of the overseeing committee, will shield the board from
>>
> *some* of the day-to-day business of telling the pTLP that something
>>
> needs to be fixed.
>
> Is this pretty close to IPMC in another name?
No it isn't. First of al
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Upayavira wrote:
> I'd much rather we be clear with projects right up front, saying
> something like:
>
> "To join the Incubator, you need one or more mentors. To get to
> graduation, you will need the support of those mentors. If mentors
> become unavailable, you
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:59 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
> This to me looks like a good way to make sure a mentor can always do their
> job - make sure they're not overloaded.
>
> BTW these #'s (1 & 2) should be subjective as I'm just making guesses for
> good #'s.
>
Not only are these numbers relat
50 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off
>
> This statement confuses the lack of active mentors with the sheer size of the
> IPMC. The problem is not the size of the IPMC. The problem is that mentors
> are not doing their jobs
>
&g
> One extra thing to note, that while we can *start* this comittee as
dedicated
>
to Incubating projects, it will be a very natural extension to get it
involved
>
in monitoring all of TLPs, not just pTLPs.
What problem exists today where the Board needs
such
a buffer?
In what ways could
> An addition of the overseeing committee, will shield the board from
>
*some* of the day-to-day business of telling the pTLP that something
>
needs to be fixed.
Is this pretty close to IPMC in another name?
Who gets to be on the new overseeing committee? Not current IPMC membership
right?
lto:l...@toolazydogs.com]
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 4:50 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off
This statement confuses the lack of active mentors with the sheer size of the
IPMC. The problem is not the size of the IPMC. The problem is that mentors are
not
Perhaps then, there's a recommendation that:
- a member can be champion to only one pTLP at a time.
- a member can be mentor to no more than two pTLP at a time.
This to me looks like a good way to make sure a mentor can always do their
job - make sure they're not overloaded.
BTW these #'s (1 & 2
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@incuba
A champion is merely a mentor who has publicly committed to being an active
mentor, in some significant capacity, of a podling.
The creation of such a role is symptomatic of a dysfunctional organization
where responsibility and accountability has been diluted so much it's not at
all clear who
iginal Message-
From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman
Shaposhnik
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 3:39 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org; Benson Margulies
Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off
I am clearly hitting my rate-limit with emails to general@, st
When I sign up for helping a project, especially as champion, this is a
very reasonable request.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Benson Margulies
wrote:
> Back in 2013, I suggested asking the Champion to accept a very clear
> level of reporting responsibility: to write a sentence or two _every
@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman
Shaposhnik
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 3:39 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org; Benson Margulies
Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off
I am clearly hitting my rate-limit with emails to general@, still since Ross'
reply was one of th
ns 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
Makes sense :)
Hadrian
On 01/05/2015 06:41 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
Back in 2013, I suggested asking the Champion to accept a very clear
level of reporting responsibility: to write a sentence or two _every
month_ or find someone else to do it. That's one person whom I wanted
to ask to sign up
Hi Jan,
On Jan 5, 2015, at 12:18 PM, jan i wrote:
> On 5 January 2015 at 20:06, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 5, 2015, at 10:26 AM, jan i wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, January 5, 2015, Alan D. Cabrera >> > wrote:
>>>
On Jan 5, 2015, at 9:21 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
>> wrote:
Back in 2013, I suggested asking the Champion to accept a very clear
level of reporting responsibility: to write a sentence or two _every
month_ or find someone else to do it. That's one person whom I wanted
to ask to sign up, for the duration of an incubation, to pay enough
attention to be able to
I am clearly hitting my rate-limit with emails to general@, still 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 nece
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
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 from those
> reviews, the IPMC is.
Agreed for the state of the things today. What is being proposed
is that actions resulting from those reviews are going to be
pTLPs P
On 5 January 2015 at 21:57, Upayavira wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015, at 08:18 PM, jan i wrote:
> > On 5 January 2015 at 20:06, Alan D. Cabrera
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Jan 5, 2015, at 10:26 AM, jan i wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Monday, January 5, 2015, Alan D. Cabrera > > > > wrote:
> > > >
ator.apache.org"
Date: Monday, January 5, 2015 at 8:59 AM
To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off
>
>On Jan 5, 2015, at 8:22 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
>>
>>wrote:
>&
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015, at 08:18 PM, jan i wrote:
> On 5 January 2015 at 20:06, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> >
> > On Jan 5, 2015, at 10:26 AM, jan i wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, January 5, 2015, Alan D. Cabrera > > > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> On Jan 5, 2015, at 9:21 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
> > wrot
On 5 January 2015 at 20:06, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> On Jan 5, 2015, at 10:26 AM, jan i wrote:
>
> > On Monday, January 5, 2015, Alan D. Cabrera > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Jan 5, 2015, at 9:21 AM, Roman Shaposhnik
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The tracking part is easy, though. What's difficult is th
An "IPMC responsibility" is a "no responsibility".
How many people here are prepared to take on a struggling project "for
the love of the Incubator", with no particular interest or investment in
the technology, or connection to the people involved?
In the end, if a project wants to join the ASF,
On Jan 5, 2015, at 10:26 AM, jan i wrote:
> On Monday, January 5, 2015, Alan D. Cabrera > wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 5, 2015, at 9:21 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>>
>>> The tracking part is easy, though. What's difficult is the part
>>> that would require us to do something with poddlings put
>>
On Jan 5, 2015, at 10:22 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 5, 2015, at 9:21 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>>
>>> The tracking part is easy, though. What's difficult is the part
>>> that would require us to do something with poddl
On Monday, January 5, 2015, Alan D. Cabrera > wrote:
>
> On Jan 5, 2015, at 9:21 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>
> > The tracking part is easy, though. What's difficult is the part
> > that would require us to do something with poddlings put
> > on hold. Unless we come up with clear exit criteria f
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> On Jan 5, 2015, at 9:21 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>
>> The tracking part is easy, though. What's difficult is the part
>> that would require us to do something with poddlings put
>> on hold. Unless we come up with clear exit criteria f
On Jan 5, 2015, at 9:21 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> The tracking part is easy, though. What's difficult is the part
> that would require us to do something with poddlings put
> on hold. Unless we come up with clear exit criteria for
> this new state -- I don't think we're solving any real prob
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 6:36 PM, jan i wrote:
> ...I like this idea, except putting the full responsibility of finding new
> mentors on the shoulders of the...
The Incubator PMC would help of course, but it's the podling who's in
charge of asking for mentors, in the same way as when they enter
inc
On Jan 5, 2015, at 9:14 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm resending Alan's proposal with a new subject as I think it
> deserves more attention.
>
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>> ...Podlings would be required to have a minimum of two active mentors. A
>
On Monday, January 5, 2015, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm resending Alan's proposal with a new subject as I think it
> deserves more attention.
>
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Alan D. Cabrera > wrote:
> > ...Podlings would be required to have a minimum of two active mentors.
> A m
"
Date: Monday, January 5, 2015 at 8:59 AM
To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off
>
>On Jan 5, 2015, at 8:22 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Alan D. Cabrera
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>&
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980)
wrote:
> What new thing is being proposed here?...
This, meant to fix the "mentors fade away" problem:
>>>...Podlings that
>>> do not have the minimum of two active mentors are put on hold until
>>>they find enough mentors to fill the quot
On 01/05/2015 12:14 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
A mentor is free to become inactive
but must explicitly state this else the mentor risks being removed for not
performing their duties.
For most mentors, it seems that going inactive is a gradual slide, not a
momentous decision.
--
Ric
: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Date: Monday, January 5, 2015 at 9:14 AM
To: Incubator General
Subject: Podlings should be in charge of their mentors (was: Incubator
report sign-off)
>Hi,
>
>I'm resending Alan's proposal with a new subject as I think it
>deserves
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> ...What's difficult is the part
> that would require us to do something with poddlings put
> on hold. Unless we come up with clear exit criteria for
> this new state -- I don't think we're solving any real problems
> here
A podling tha
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> I am in favor of #3 since it holds mentors accountable. #1 is simply a
> washing of
> our hands and pawning the problem off on the board simple because some of us
> are unwilling to do uncomfortable things.
Here's the bit that seems to be
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> As for measuring the mentors activity, I suggest simply adding a
> question to the podling reports, "who are your two active mentors and
> are you happy with their activity" along with requiring report
> sign-off from those two mentors.
Hi,
I'm resending Alan's proposal with a new subject as I think it
deserves more attention.
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> ...Podlings would be required to have a minimum of two active mentors. A
> mentor is free to become inactive
> but must explicitly state this els
On Jan 5, 2015, at 8:22 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 22, 2014, at 8:42 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>>>
>>> 1. get rid of IPMC altogether and move to the pTLP model
>>
>> This is effectively an IPMC reboot. I don’t real
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>> On Dec 22, 2014, at 8:42 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>>
>>1. get rid of IPMC altogether and move to the pTLP model
>
> This is effectively an IPMC reboot. I don’t really see anything
> substantially different.
At this point, I'm c
> 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: Friday, December 19, 2014 10:11 AM
> To: general@incubato
> On Dec 29, 2014, at 6:40 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
>> 3. patch the current process with starting to drop the mentors from
>> the project who don't sign off. This will essentially serve
>> as a heartbeat for mentors (now, in my opinion it'll quickly
>>deteriorate into
> On Dec 22, 2014, at 8:42 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>
>1. get rid of IPMC altogether and move to the pTLP model
This is effectively an IPMC reboot. I don’t really see anything substantially
different.
>2. make this a poddling issue: if a poddling fails to hunt down ALL
>t
> On Dec 19, 2014, at 9:10 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
> I noted in my comments on the recent Incubator board report that I am
> concerned, month after month, at the number of podlings that have no mentor
> sign-off at all, as well as the ones where a minority of the mentors sign-off.
>
> I certa
ncubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Process over Ego [Was: Re: Incubator report sign-off
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980)
wrote:
> So, promote those 20 people to ComDev PMC, promote them to ASF
> members, promote them however, my guess is that they *care* about
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980)
wrote:
> So, promote those 20 people to ComDev PMC, promote them to ASF
> members, promote them however, my guess is that they *care* about
> the foundation; we want these people helping new projects, and they
> will continue to help those
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH)
wrote:
> This is at the root of my proposal to *expect* mentors to have a vested
> interest in the success of a project.
Every single one of us here shares that *expectation*. What this
thread fails to address is a *practically* mechan
, December 30, 2014 8:05 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off
Ross,
I think we're actually on the same page. My point with ripple was not so much
that it wasn't bringing it to anyone's attention (in fact the opposite, it's
plastered all
ee with the overall intention of your mail, but it seems I
> disagree on what adequate oversight is.
>
> Ross
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: John D. Ament [mailto:johndam...@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 7:47 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sub
PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off
On Tue Dec 30 2014 at 1:26:31 PM Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 7:26 AM, John D. Ament
>
> wrote:
>
> > > Absolutely not just noise. Take the extra 2 seconds to add your
> > > sign
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 6:23 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> I'd like to look at this through a lens of failure analysis. How do
> podlings fail? I see two main patterns.
>
> 1. Failure to build a community. These are the podlings that we find
> adrift in space with the lights on but no one home on
On Tue Dec 30 2014 at 1:26:31 PM Ted Dunning wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 7:26 AM, John D. Ament
> wrote:
>
> > > Absolutely not just noise. Take the extra 2 seconds to add your sign
> off.
> > >
> >
> > I disagree. Checking a check box is much different than adding
> meaningful
> > comment
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 7:26 AM, John D. Ament
wrote:
> > Absolutely not just noise. Take the extra 2 seconds to add your sign off.
> >
>
> I disagree. Checking a check box is much different than adding meaningful
> comments, either on mailing lists or on the report itself.
>
> For example, whic
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980)
wrote:
> ...what’s also not useful is acting like a proposal that’s existed for
> years is something new - it’s been discussed - a simple Google search
> yielded hundreds of emails no the topic
Besides taking a bit of time to read, hun
Hi Bertrand,
-Original Message-
From: Bertrand Delacretaz
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 at 9:30 AM
To: Incubator General
Subject: Re: Process over Ego [Was: Re: Incubator report sign-off
>Hi Chris,
>
>On Tue, Dec
Hi Chris,
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980)
wrote:
> ...http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal ...
Thanks for this, this looks like a good definition of "the experiment".
> ...1. the documentation on *what* to do for incoming projects is
> alrea
14 at 1:09 AM
To: Incubator General
Subject: Re: Process over Ego [Was: Re: Incubator report sign-off
>On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
>wrote:
>> ...It would be sad if this Incubator Community disappears in the
>>proposed
>> move of incubating proje
On Dec 30, 2014 10:27 AM, "John D. Ament" wrote:
>
> On Mon Dec 29 2014 at 9:50:49 AM Rich Bowen wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 12/21/2014 11:14 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
> > > I don't particularly like that idea. For one, I know that if I were
to
> > see
> > > 50%+ of mentors on a project I'm a mentor
On Mon Dec 29 2014 at 9:50:49 AM Rich Bowen wrote:
>
>
> On 12/21/2014 11:14 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
> > I don't particularly like that idea. For one, I know that if I were to
> see
> > 50%+ of mentors on a project I'm a mentor on sign off on the report, I'm
> > probably going to look at things
On 12/30/2014 09:00 AM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
On 30 Dec 2014, at 03:56, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Andrew Purtell
> wrote:
>>...Certainly some projects have a de facto lead that coincide with Chair and
I'm pretty sure
>>in some cases that is an honora
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
> ...outside of self-policing, is there a mechanism to ensure that something
> like this, disfavouring egoistic
> power, is in place? Note, I’m not sure it’s actually needed, just curious
I don't think there's a formal mechanism, but
+1
-Original Message-
From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 00:56
To: Incubator General
Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Andrew Purtell
wrote:
> ...Certainly some projects have a de facto l
> On 30 Dec 2014, at 03:56, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Andrew Purtell
> wrote:
>> ...Certainly some projects have a de facto lead that coincide with Chair and
>> I'm pretty sure
>> in some cases that is an honorary arrangement agreed to by the community
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> ...I cannot see the Board ever mandating chair rotations. That is up to the
> community
> ...For projects that don't understand the difference between "supportive" and
> "lead": yeah, they could use a dose of trout-slapping and a chair rot
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:04 AM, jan i wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 30, 2014, Bertrand Delacretaz >
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Andrew Purtell
> > > wrote:
> > > ...Certainly some projects have a de facto lead that coincide with
> Chair
> > and I'm pretty sure
> > > in some
On Tuesday, December 30, 2014, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Andrew Purtell
> > wrote:
> > ...Certainly some projects have a de facto lead that coincide with Chair
> and I'm pretty sure
> > in some cases that is an honorary arrangement agreed to by the
> community.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
> ...It would be sad if this Incubator Community disappears in the proposed
> move of incubating project to be reporting directly to the ASF Board...
With my board member hat on, you can count on a strong -1 from me on
that suggestion.
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Andrew Purtell
wrote:
> ...Certainly some projects have a de facto lead that coincide with Chair and
> I'm pretty sure
> in some cases that is an honorary arrangement agreed to by the community
*loud red alarms going off all over my brain*
If that's the case
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts wrote:
>
>> On 29 Dec 2014, at 18:54, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>>
>> But a move of reporting-to authority does not have to change any of
>> that, does it?
>
> Depends on how much of an anarchist one is :-) and what is meant by
> authority, to
> On 29 Dec 2014, at 18:54, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>
> But a move of reporting-to authority does not have to change any of
> that, does it?
Depends on how much of an anarchist one is :-) and what is meant by authority,
too, I suppose.
But, to answer the question, I would say, no: it does
+1 well said.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Benson Margulies<mailto:bimargul...@gmail.com>
Sent: 12/29/2014 6:25 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off
I'd like to loo
I'd like to look at this through a lens of failure analysis. How do
podlings fail? I see two main patterns.
1. Failure to build a community. These are the podlings that we find
adrift in space with the lights on but no one home on the mailing
list.
2. Failure to build an _Apache_ community. These
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 6:40 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> Roman, please forgive me absence from this conversation. I started the
> thread, and then went on Christmas vacation. I am still on vacation for
> another week, but will attempt to keep up with the conversation here, and
> not abandon the thread
> -Original Message-
>> From: Andrew Purtell [mailto:andrew.purt...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 10:45 AM
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off
>>
>> There are honorary and practical reasons why a
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 6:15 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> This is what happens when I write email like this and then go for two weeks
> off of work. Catching up ...
Oh, man! I was about to take a strong and decisive action today ;-)
Seriously -- welcome back into this conversation.
> You make a good
ity and they will only do that at the
> request of the PMC as a whole (or when there is no active PMC to make such a
> request).
>
> Ross
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Purtell [mailto:andrew.purt...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 10:45 AM
>
Agreed, it's not worth debating project lead as a formal or informal construct.
I don't think we are on the same page. Certainly some projects have a de facto
lead that coincide with Chair and I'm pretty sure in some cases that is an
honorary arrangement agreed to by the community.
> On Dec 2
On 12/29/2014 02:46 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote:
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 PMC as a whole (or when there is no active PMC to make such a
re
> From: Andrew Purtell [mailto:andrew.purt...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 10:45 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off
>
> There are honorary and practical reasons why a project may view the PMC Chair
> and the project
On 12/29/2014 01:45 PM, Andrew Purtell wrote:
There are honorary and practical reasons why a project may view the PMC Chair
and the project leader as one in the same.
Honorary: The community elevated one member as lead and assigned the Chair role
out of respect.
Practical: The PMC Chair has
est of the PMC as a whole (or when there is no active PMC to make such a
request).
Ross
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Purtell [mailto:andrew.purt...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 10:45 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Incubator report sign-off
There are ho
There are honorary and practical reasons why a project may view the PMC Chair
and the project leader as one in the same.
Honorary: The community elevated one member as lead and assigned the Chair role
out of respect.
Practical: The PMC Chair has the power to dissolve the PMC, and is an office
itself" rather than simply saying "sure I'd
like to see more projects at the ASF"
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Rich Bowen<mailto:rbo...@rcbowen.com>
Sent: 12/29/2014 6:13 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.a
On Dec 29, 2014 12:11 PM, "Hadrian Zbarcea" wrote:
>
>
> On 12/29/2014 09:40 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/22/2014 11:42 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> before answering Ross' proposal, I'd like to remark that I was holding
>>> off on replying to see whether viewpoints th
+1
On 12/29/2014 09:15 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
This is what happens when I write email like this and then go for two
weeks off of work. Catching up ...
On 12/19/2014 01:10 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
First of all,*my* expectation is that multiple mentors on the project
are more of redundancy o
On 12/29/2014 09:40 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
On 12/22/2014 11:42 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
Hi!
before answering Ross' proposal, I'd like to remark that I was holding
off on replying to see whether viewpoints that we haven's seen before
would emerge. It seems that they didn't. It seems that we
On 12/21/2014 11:14 AM, John D. Ament wrote:
I don't particularly like that idea. For one, I know that if I were to see
50%+ of mentors on a project I'm a mentor on sign off on the report, I'm
probably going to look at things, but not add my signature. Not out of
laziness, but in seeing that
On 12/23/2014 03:34 PM, sebb wrote:
Flex had three great mentors, but to expect them to be the PMC Chair on
>graduation would have been problematic. They were great mentors because
>they had lots of experience from their work on other Apache projects, and
>thus didn’t have time to stay active
On 12/22/2014 11:42 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
Hi!
before answering Ross' proposal, I'd like to remark that I was holding
off on replying to see whether viewpoints that we haven's seen before
would emerge. It seems that they didn't. It seems that we're still limited
by the following options w
On 12/19/2014 02:20 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote:
What it would do however if we simply did away with the notion of the
IPMC/Incubator/etc., is to return to the notion of pTLPs which were
proposed earlier which I would most wholeheartedly support.
Having read more, and understood more,
On 12/19/2014 02:20 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) wrote:
1. Incubation yes, Incubator no
a. (all Incubator documentation, active folks, etc., become part of the
pool of [incoming project VP])
b. IPMC is dissolved
c. We create a new “Incubation PMC” that includes most active members of
I
This is what happens when I write email like this and then go for two
weeks off of work. Catching up ...
On 12/19/2014 01:10 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
First of all,*my* expectation is that multiple mentors on the project
are more of redundancy or HA consideration. IOW, my expectation that
a
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
