On Sun, 2006-10-08 at 02:09 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> I'd previously suggested (with an fresh message topic, even) a meeting at
> ApacheCon
>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> but no one replied. I'm still game for an Incubation meeting with whomever
> wants to gather.
If this is
Mark Little wrote:
> So let's try to take this to some "logical" conclusion: you're saying
> that just because person A says something that person B disagrees
> with, person B should then accept that because person A is somehow
> more experienced?
No and hell no. "Because I said so" doesn't cut i
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> List of things to pack for ApacheCon
:-)
I'd previously suggested (with an fresh message topic, even) a meeting at
ApacheCon
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
but no one replied. I'm still game for an Incubation meeting with whomever
wants to gather.
--- Noe
I find that you only suffer a hangover if you actually sober up.
There's a simple solution to that ;-)
Mark.
On 7 Oct 2006, at 10:46, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
List of things to pack for ApacheCon:
- some eggs
- tomato juice
- asperine and
- vitamine C pills...
With all the beer going back a
List of things to pack for ApacheCon:
- some eggs
- tomato juice
- asperine and
- vitamine C pills...
With all the beer going back and forth, until the full beer dept is
paid off, you're bound for some serious hangover. I'm sorry I can't be
a witness for this event :)
I agree with many that this
In which case I apologies if I got the context wrong. Let's please
just collectively shake hands (hard to do via email I know) and agree
to buy each other some drinks if we ever catch up face-to-face.
All the best,
Mark.
On 6 Oct 2006, at 22:29, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-BEGIN P
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark,
I believe you took my entire message out of its intended
context, which was the recent me/you/Leo/you minithread.
Most definitely not the entire looong discussion thread,
nor the overall topic with all the threads hanging from it.
Sorry if I wa
On 6 Oct 2006, at 21:34, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Little wrote:
1) ASF is a meritocracy.
And people learn by questioning, not by being passive observers!
Actually, I think that's patently false. You never learned
anything from a b
On 6 Oct 2006, at 21:08, Henri Yandell wrote:
Replying from the peanut gallery because the friction is getting
too high.
On 10/6/06, Mark Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6 Oct 2006, at 18:10, Leo Simons wrote:
>
> Erm.
>
> 1) ASF is a meritocracy.
And people learn by questioning, not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Little wrote:
>
>> 1) ASF is a meritocracy.
>
> And people learn by questioning, not by being passive observers!
Actually, I think that's patently false. You never learned
anything from a book? Or a lecture? Or a discussion?
And people gain
Replying from the peanut gallery because the friction is getting too high.
On 10/6/06, Mark Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6 Oct 2006, at 18:10, Leo Simons wrote:
>
> Erm.
>
> 1) ASF is a meritocracy.
And people learn by questioning, not by being passive observers!
Questioning is good.
On Oct 6, 2006, at 7:10 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
2) The mentors for CXF (well, until recently) have accumulated
loads of merit. Enough to be allowed to be mentors, and then some.
The guy you're disagreeing with has accumulated so much merit he
has difficulty passing through airport security (*
On 6 Oct 2006, at 18:10, Leo Simons wrote:
On Oct 5, 2006, at 4:19 PM, Mark Little wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006, at 14:54, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Mark Little wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006, at 23:20, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
You will, of course, infer and interpret events as you choose.
It's pre
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> I did not like the idea of rebooting CXF because I think
> the CXF community would have lost an important
> "lessons-learned" opportunity...
IMHO, there's been a 'lessons-learned' opportunity
for the incubator, too.
- --
#ken
Just an update:
o Jason has stepped down as Mentor for CXF.
o The PPMC has been setup.
o Anyone who was supposed to get commit privs and did not
is being contacted to see if they still want it, and
if they say Yes, will receive it.
o If they also request to join the PPMC, they wil
On Oct 5, 2006, at 4:19 PM, Mark Little wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006, at 14:54, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Mark Little wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006, at 23:20, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
You will, of course, infer and interpret events as you choose.
It's pretty obvious to me, a complete outsider, that t
On 5 Oct 2006, at 14:54, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Little wrote:
On 4 Oct 2006, at 23:20, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
You will, of course, infer and interpret events as you choose.
It's pretty obvious to me, a complete outsider, that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Little wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2006, at 23:20, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
>> You will, of course, infer and interpret events as you choose.
>> It's pretty obvious to me, a complete outsider, that there was
>> nothing 'random' about this at all.
>
On 4 Oct 2006, at 23:20, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Little wrote:
Is random denial of initial commiters typical?
Not at all, in fact I'm confident that's never ever happened. The
assertion that this decision is "random" is a little offe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Little wrote:
>
>>> Is random denial of initial commiters typical?
>> Not at all, in fact I'm confident that's never ever happened. The
>> assertion that this decision is "random" is a little offensive.
>
> No offense meant, but given the blac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> I don't like that. I don't like that fact that from
> the start, those who are approved as initial committers
> aren't on the PPMC.
Fact, or would-be fact according to the proposal?
> If that means we need to trim the
> size
On 10/2/06, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 1, 2006, at 1:05 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> This is why I keep pushing back with the idea that we bootstrap in
> a defined
> manner:
>
> - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> - The PPMC (Mentors) elect
On Oct 1, 2006, at 1:05 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
This is why I keep pushing back with the idea that we bootstrap in
a defined
manner:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
This
On 2 Oct 2006, at 08:17, Leo Simons wrote:
At the formation of the project all members of the group were
asked to submit signed ICLAs, which we did via fax and snail-mail.
However, due to a problem with the fax, after 4 weeks they hadn't
turned up and we re-submitted. This time, at the s
On Sep 29, 2006, at 11:06 AM, Mark Little wrote:
Redhat were one of the supporters of the Celtixfire incubator
project and discussed with the proposers to add Kevin Conner and
myself to the list of initial commiters. As part of this, our names
were included in the proposal. Both Kevin and I
On 10/1/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
you see that requirement? I don't see anything excluding the PPMC from
voting in all of the ex
On 10/1/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Where in:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
you see that requirement? I don't see anything excluding the PPMC from
voting in
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote:
> > +1 provided we take the list of interested committers out of the
> > proposal.
> This works for some proposals but not for others. Take Wicket for
example:
> we would require all of the people who already had commit access to Wicket
> re-prove
Henri Yandell wrote:
> Mads Toftum wrote:
> > Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > > - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> > > - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> > > - The PPMC elects Committers
> > +1 a step in the right direction.
> +1 provided we take the
On 10/1/06, Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/1/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> +1 provided we take the list of interested committers out of the
> proposal. We shouldn't be indicating that we are in favour of a
> proposal if we're not going to make the committers
On 10/1/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 10/1/06, Mads Toftum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 01:05:37PM -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> > - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
On 10/1/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 provided we take the list of interested committers out of the
proposal. We shouldn't be indicating that we are in favour of a
proposal if we're not going to make the committers listed committers.
This works for some proposals but not for
On 1 Oct 06, at 1:05 PM 1 Oct 06, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
- The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
- The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
- The PPMC elects Committers
+1
--- Noel
-
+1 from me on the process. FWIW, that's what we followed in Harmony
and then ODE.
FWIW, As a mentor for a specific project, I'd like to see some
activity (patches/bugs) from a proposed committer. Not just say a
couple of one line emails before i vote them in as a committer.
thanks,
dims
On 10/1
On 10/1/06, Mads Toftum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 01:05:37PM -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> - The PPMC elects Committers
>
+1 a step in the right di
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 01:05:37PM -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> - The Incubator PMC sets the Mentors, who form the initial PPMC
> - The PPMC (Mentors) elects additional PPMC members
> - The PPMC elects Committers
>
+1 a step in the right direction.
vh
Mads Toftum
--
http://soulfood.dk
--
Robert,
> setting aside the particulars, this worries me from a process perspective.
> the initial list of committers was elected by the incubator PMC as
> part of the approval process. IMO the incubator PMC cannot provide
> oversight if we delegate power to the PPMCs to change their terms of
> r
On 30 Sep 06, at 10:09 AM 30 Sep 06, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Sep 30, 2006, at 3:57 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 9/29/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Jim,
Can you please explain what the criteria was for removing people
from
the comitter list? Can you also detail w
On Sep 30, 2006, at 3:57 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 9/29/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Jim,
Can you please explain what the criteria was for removing people from
the comitter list? Can you also detail who was removed? Can you also
explain why this hasn't been commun
I would agree with the notion of a low bar to membership for
incubators. I run the JBossESB effort which has really only been
going since March and we've taken a similar approach. The community
has grown immensely since then, with a dozen serious committers from
a range of companies. Give p
On 9/29/06, Dan Diephouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Jim,
Can you please explain what the criteria was for removing people from
the comitter list? Can you also detail who was removed? Can you also
explain why this hasn't been communicated to everyone on the dev list so
far? And why I have onl
Out of curiosity - has any such "internal decision" been made? I can
not find anything in either of the archives - private or dev.
Cheers,
Berin
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I will defer to those on the PPMC that had "issues"
with the list.
On Sep 29, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
I will defer to those on the PPMC that had "issues"
with the list.
On Sep 29, 2006, at 11:31 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote:
Hi Jim,
Can you please explain what the criteria was for removing people
from the comitter list? Can you also detail who was removed? Can
you also explain why this hasn't b
Hi Jim,
Can you please explain what the criteria was for removing people from
the comitter list? Can you also detail who was removed? Can you also
explain why this hasn't been communicated to everyone on the dev list so
far? And why I have only heard about the final decision third hand from
t
Without discussing anything regarding the initial list
and who should or should not have been on it, it needs
to be reminded that the bar to committership for Incubator
podlings is necessarily a bit lower than for real
PMCs. After all, one thing the podling must work on is
increasing the community
45 matches
Mail list logo
