Hi,
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Alan Cabrera wrote:
> Also, I'm too lazy to troll through the list to collect the two new
> additional mentors for Chukwa,
> I think that it was Ant and Jukka. Can Ant and Jukka confirm?
Confirmed.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
---
If no one minds I think it would be a good idea for the docs to be updated with
our new common understanding. What I propose is for for a wiki page with the
new wording to be created for us to comment/vote on. I'm happy to consolidate
the current thinking on this.
Also, I'm too lazy to troll
+1 on active PMC duties would be fine to ensure continuation of the project.
regards,
Eric
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 30 November 2012 00:52, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
> > Hard cases make bad law. The rough parameters of the recent 'small
> > graduates' was that t
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Alan Cabrera wrote:
>> On Nov 30, 2012, at 12:56 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>>...I'd say you need at least five
>>> active PMC members at graduation time...
>
>> ...Maybe that could be a requireme
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Alan Cabrera wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2012, at 12:56 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>...I'd say you need at least five
>> active PMC members at graduation time...
> ...Maybe that could be a requirement, if the mentors think that the podling
> is not diverse and
> vib
On Nov 30, 2012, at 12:56 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Alan Cabrera wrote:
>> Hence my idea to do away with the rule of thumb and stick to at least one
>> responsible PMC member
>
> How will that work? IIUC your idea, the resulting PMC cannot get 3 PMC
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:27 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 30 November 2012 00:52, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
> > Hard cases make bad law. The rough parameters of the recent 'small
> > graduates' was that they had around 5 initial PMC members, and some
> > detectable evidence that all of them were
On 30 November 2012 00:52, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Hard cases make bad law. The rough parameters of the recent 'small
> graduates' was that they had around 5 initial PMC members, and some
> detectable evidence that all of them were in the reasonably regular
> habit of contributing code, let alo
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 4:18 AM, Alan Cabrera wrote:
> Hence my idea to do away with the rule of thumb and stick to at least one
> responsible PMC member
How will that work? IIUC your idea, the resulting PMC cannot get 3 PMC
votes so it cannot operate.
I don't want to burden the board with
Hence my idea to do away with the rule of thumb and stick to at least one
responsible PMC member.
What problem are we trying to avoid by having this activity/diversity boundary?
Regards,
Alan
On Nov 29, 2012, at 4:52 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Hard cases make bad law. The rough parameters
Hard cases make bad law. The rough parameters of the recent 'small
graduates' was that they had around 5 initial PMC members, and some
detectable evidence that all of them were in the reasonably regular
habit of contributing code, let alone voting for releases. If we
insist on testing the absolute
On 29/11/12 14:53, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Alan Cabrera wrote:
... Would you also add the three or more active PMC members requirement? What
constitutes active?...
IMO the bare minimum is being able to find three PMC members to vote
on things when needed.
On Nov 29, 2012, at 7:45 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 29 November 2012 14:59, Alan Cabrera wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 29, 2012, at 6:53 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Alan Cabrera
>> wrote:
... Would you also add the three or more active PMC members
>>
On 29 November 2012 14:59, Alan Cabrera wrote:
>
> On Nov 29, 2012, at 6:53 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Alan Cabrera
> wrote:
> >> ... Would you also add the three or more active PMC members
> requirement? What constitutes active?...
> >
> > IMO the bar
On Nov 29, 2012, at 6:53 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Alan Cabrera wrote:
>> ... Would you also add the three or more active PMC members requirement?
>> What constitutes active?...
>
> IMO the bare minimum is being able to find three PMC members to vote
>
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Alan Cabrera wrote:
>... Would you also add the three or more active PMC members requirement? What
>constitutes active?...
IMO the bare minimum is being able to find three PMC members to vote
on things when needed.
Once a project gets below this limit it's in t
On Nov 29, 2012, at 1:14 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 29 November 2012 08:56, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, November 28, 2012, Greg Reddin wrote:
>>> ...What difference does it make to
>>> the ASF if a project is very small or very slow?...
>>
>> IMO, as long as there's three or
On 29 November 2012 08:56, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 28, 2012, Greg Reddin wrote:
> > ...What difference does it make to
> > the ASF if a project is very small or very slow?...
>
> IMO, as long as there's three or more active PMC members who react when
> needed, and provi
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 28, 2012, Greg Reddin wrote:
> > ...What difference does it make to
> > the ASF if a project is very small or very slow?...
>
> IMO, as long as there's three or more active PMC members who react when
> needed, an
On Wednesday, November 28, 2012, Greg Reddin wrote:
> ...What difference does it make to
> the ASF if a project is very small or very slow?...
IMO, as long as there's three or more active PMC members who react when
needed, and provide the quarterly board reports, a small/slow project is
fine and t
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Alan Cabrera wrote:
> If we have shepherds to monitor the all too human mentors, should we not
> also have reapers, to monitor TLPs? I'm all for being on the optimistic
> side and graduate small projects but, sometimes, I feel it's done because
> we don't wish to
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> TLPs do, sometimes, retire. Some of them have retired precisely
> because all the contributors disappeared due to seismic events at
> work. The board has been observed to keep a TLP alive really to the
> last possible moment -- the point w
On Nov 28, 2012, at 1:48 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> TLPs do, sometimes, retire. Some of them have retired precisely
> because all the contributors disappeared due to seismic events at
> work. The board has been observed to keep a TLP alive really to the
> last possible moment -- the point wher
TLPs do, sometimes, retire. Some of them have retired precisely
because all the contributors disappeared due to seismic events at
work. The board has been observed to keep a TLP alive really to the
last possible moment -- the point where there were less than three
people to vote on a release.
This
On Nov 28, 2012, at 12:56 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Alan Cabrera wrote:
>> ...I'm wondering if it makes sense to do away with the diversity and vibrant
>> dictum and merely state that at least one person is reasonably active and
>> that
>> all the PMC mem
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Alan Cabrera wrote:
> ...I'm wondering if it makes sense to do away with the diversity and vibrant
> dictum and merely state that at least one person is reasonably active and that
> all the PMC members are trustworthy
I wouldn't want to graduate a project that
+1
For me mentoring ends when the PPMC is able to demonstrate that it can work
in a way that will build diversity, not necessarily when diversity is
achieved.
Ross
Sent from my tablet
On Nov 28, 2012 8:47 PM, "Alan Cabrera" wrote:
> I've been giving this some thought and I've worked hard at ke
I've been giving this some thought and I've worked hard at keeping it short and
sweet. So finer points are left out but I hope they are obvious.
What does ASF's Imprimatur mean?
Does it mean that project is diverse and vibrant? No.
Does it mean that the project's committers and PMC members
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:41 PM, ant elder wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:24 PM, ant elder wrote:
>> > ...Slow poddlings don't use much ASF resource so aren't a burden...
>>
>> I disagree: podlings do use mentor's energy - gra
The question of a time limit is like other questions we deal with: we
don't want to set a hard limit, but the idea of incubation going along
for years and years is not consistent with the vision of what the
incubator is. Sam was at pains to present this dilemma, not to ask for
some kind of hard lim
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:24 PM, ant elder wrote:
> > ...Slow poddlings don't use much ASF resource so aren't a burden...
>
> I disagree: podlings do use mentor's energy - graduating or retiring
> them is a way to free up mentors for
On 28 November 2012 14:32, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:24 PM, ant elder wrote:
> > ...Slow poddlings don't use much ASF resource so aren't a burden...
>
> I disagree: podlings do use mentor's energy - graduating or retiring
> them is a way to free up mentors for other i
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 3:24 PM, ant elder wrote:
> ...Slow poddlings don't use much ASF resource so aren't a burden...
I disagree: podlings do use mentor's energy - graduating or retiring
them is a way to free up mentors for other incoming podlings.
-Bertrand
--
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> I have only one point of discomfort with Ross' writing here.
>
> Ross's position, in this and other messages, seems to me to be that it
> a podling can persist indefinitely, so long as (a) it has involved
> mentors, and (b) there's no ongo
On 28 November 2012 13:42, Benson Margulies wrote:
> I have only one point of discomfort with Ross' writing here.
>
> Ross's position, in this and other messages, seems to me to be that it
> a podling can persist indefinitely, so long as (a) it has involved
> mentors, and (b) there's no ongoing v
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> 2: While I appreciate that mentors are not entirely fungible, I tend
> to think in terms of a limited pool of volunteer effort, so indefinite
> incubation worries me.
It's their decision to volunteer their efforts in that way so I don't
I have only one point of discomfort with Ross' writing here.
Ross's position, in this and other messages, seems to me to be that it
a podling can persist indefinitely, so long as (a) it has involved
mentors, and (b) there's no ongoing violation of Foundation policy.
I have two reasons to wonder a
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> The current vote thread for retirement of Chukwa, coupled with some of
> the other discussion threads, raises some questions that need to be
> resolved.
>
> How do we make retirement decisions?
>
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/retire
38 matches
Mail list logo
