On 17 January 2012 04:07, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> (That, and I haven't yet learned how to wade through the fire hose
> that is general@incubator to spot potential reminders.)
If everything is set up right Marvin will send reminders to the
project lists. You might have been on the cusp this time a
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
>> And here we return to a thread of some weeks ago. One chair can't
>> review all those reports and push the bounce buttons. Some other
>> people have to step up to help.
>
> This Board
Joe Schaefer
>Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 1:23 PM
>Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was:
>Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
>
>
>
>
>
>On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>It is good that someone fin
he.org
> >> Cc:
> >> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:01 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report
> (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Joe Schaefer
>
idea needs more details for sure IMHO, but I like the base line of
it.
>
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > > From: Robert Burrell Donkin
> > > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > > Cc:
> > > Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:31 AM
> > &g
not make one general rule and
apply on all podlings that we as IPMC see that they are not doing well. I
think it is better to check case by case, which I know would not be easy.
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: Robert Burrell Donkin
> > To: general@incubator.apache
Hi Robert...
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin <
robertburrelldon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown heroic
You didn't annoy me Benson, I think you're spot on, +1.
Cheers,
Chris
On Jan 15, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> I would appreciate it if the participants in this discussion would be
> really clear about their views about several different podling
> profiles.
>
> a: A reasonably div
I would appreciate it if the participants in this discussion would be
really clear about their views about several different podling
profiles.
a: A reasonably diverse group of 5-7 people start a podling. A year
later, they've made a release or two, but no one new has turned up.
Mentors attest to g
> Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was:
> Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
>
> Relevant difference: when we reject a project we do that on public
> lists, when you apply to a university the fact you did so is private.
>
> Joe Schaefer w
munity.
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: Daniel Shahaf
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc:
> > Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:00 PM
> > Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was:
> > Small but
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Last time I looked, mentors were delegated this duty by the IPMC.
> If not, let's go ahead and do that just to add clarity.
It's indeed pretty clearly documented already:
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.
Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was:
> Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
>
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Joe Schaefer
> wrote:
>>> From: Robert Burrell Donkin
>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>> Cc:
>>>
ache.org
>>> Cc:
>>> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:11 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report
> (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Joe Schaefer
>
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> From: Robert Burrell Donkin
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:01 PM
>> Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was:
>>
e.org
>>>> Cc:
>>>> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:01 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report
>> (was: Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Joe Sch
- Original Message -
> From: ant elder
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was:
> Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
>
> On Sun, Jan
- Original Message -
> From: Robert Burrell Donkin
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was:
> Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
>
> On S
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> It is good that someone finally explained their opinion of
> a mentor's responsibility to the IPMC out in the open. Let
> me disagree with you that mentors are not supposed to be put
> in the position of judging whether or not a podling is ac
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
>> From: Robert Burrell Donkin
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:01 PM
>> Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this mon
- Original Message -
> From: Robert Burrell Donkin
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 12:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was:
> Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
>
> On S
t;
>> - Original Message -
>> > From: Robert Burrell Donkin
>> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> > Cc:
>> > Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:31 AM
>> > Subject: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board re
gt; > Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:31 AM
> > Subject: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was:
> > Small but otherwise happy podlings)]
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> It is good that someone finally explained their opinion of
> a mentor's responsibility to the IPMC out in the open. Let
> me disagree with you that mentors are not supposed to be put
> in the position of judging whether or not a podling is ac
onkin
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2012 11:31 AM
> Subject: Parking Projects [WAS Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small
> but otherwise happy podlings)]
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On Wed, Ja
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith wrote:
>> I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant have shown heroic patience as
>> mentors on this project. The situation will resolve itself one way or the
>> other soon.
>
> If the ques
> Apparently Benson feels that it is unreasonable to expect at
> least one Incubator PMC member to actually read the one report
> that this PMC sends on. Yes, I'm irritated.
To be clear, *I* read every word of every Board report that we send on. I
don't take issue with whatever else you wrote.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Marcel Offermans
wrote:
>
> The only point I was trying to make is that, as soon as discussions here were
> going in a direction where podlings over a year old should start coming up
> with a more concrete plan for graduation, I started this discussion on the
>
On Jan 12, 2012, at 1:11 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 1/11/2012 6:02 PM, Marcel Offermans wrote:
>> On Jan 11, 2012, at 23:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>>> -1 for forwarding no the following reports from projects that are over
>>> a year old and lacking crisp plan for graduatuation:
>>>
>>> C
On Jan 12, 2012, at 1:09 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Marcel Offermans
> wrote:
>> On Jan 11, 2012, at 23:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>>> -1 for forwarding no the following reports from projects that are over
>>> a year old and lacking crisp plan for graduatuation:
>>>
>>
On 1/11/2012 6:02 PM, Marcel Offermans wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2012, at 23:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> -1 for forwarding no the following reports from projects that are over
>> a year old and lacking crisp plan for graduatuation:
>>
>> Celix
>
> A plan is being discussed on the list, but did not mak
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Marcel Offermans
wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2012, at 23:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> -1 for forwarding no the following reports from projects that are over
>> a year old and lacking crisp plan for graduatuation:
>>
>> Celix
>
> A plan is being discussed on the list, but d
: Thursday, January 12, 2012 12:55 AM
> Subject: Re: -1 on this months board report (was: Small but otherwise happy
> podlings)
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Does not having the report forwarded imply being pushed out
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Does not having the report forwarded imply being pushed out of the
>> incubator? As far as I can tell, the point being made was that there was
>> nothing going on in the p
On Jan 11, 2012, at 23:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> -1 for forwarding no the following reports from projects that are over
> a year old and lacking crisp plan for graduatuation:
>
> Celix
A plan is being discussed on the list, but did not make it into this month's
report. I would kindly like to as
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith wrote:
> Hi,
> Does not having the report forwarded imply being pushed out of the
> incubator? As far as I can tell, the point being made was that there was
> nothing going on in the project, and so nothing should be reported - I'll
> leav
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Stuart Monteith wrote:
> Hi,
> Does not having the report forwarded imply being pushed out of the
> incubator? As far as I can tell, the point being made was that there was
> nothing going on in the project, and so nothing should be reported - I'll
> leav
Hi,
Does not having the report forwarded imply being pushed out of the
incubator? As far as I can tell, the point being made was that there was
nothing going on in the project, and so nothing should be reported - I'll leave
Benson to clarify.
I'll back up what Ant said - Robert and Ant
Re: Cordova was completely my fault. I think after writing it and
getting some quick consensus/approval my brain mistakenly filed it as
done. Won't happen again!
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> Thank you Sam.
>
> Re Cordova: no idea why this has not been submitted. It had
Thank you Sam.
Re Cordova: no idea why this has not been submitted. It had been written by
a community member and commented by myself and Jukka on the Dev list in
plenty of time. Jukka already raised this issue on the Dev list prior to
your mail here. Conclusion, new project learning the ropes. Me
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
>> And here we return to a thread of some weeks ago. One chair can't
>> review all those reports and push the bounce buttons. Some other
>> people have to step up to help.
>
> This Boar
41 matches
Mail list logo
