Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

My feeling is that the incubator incubates communities and their products. With the pTLP plan, the communities don't need incubating in the same way - they have sufficient maturity to self-manage. That is, to my mind, the essence of the proposal. In which case, it is the product that needs incubat

Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

On 3/4/15 1:41 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: > On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Doug Cutting > wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Roman Shaposhnik > wrote: ... > As a director, I still don't think the board needs to be involved i

Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

Hi Roman, On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 2:31 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > ... > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51812862 ... Thanks for this, I meant to review but haven't found time so far for a detailed review. However, reading the comments of other board members

Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

The bylaws don't grok the idea of a "provisional" PMC; it either is one, or it isn't. So whether we call it provisional or not, legally we need to understand whether we actually want it as a real, official PMC or not. And if we do, what, again, does the "provisional" qualifier really mean? > On M

Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

On 03/04/2015 01:41 PM, Benson Margulies wrote: On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Doug Cutting mailto:cutt...@apache.org>> wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Roman Shaposhnik mailto:r...@apache.org>> wrote: > At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as >

Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Doug Cutting wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as > > wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request > > attention of the ASF board members who ask

Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > At this point, I would like to open this document for soliciting as > wide a feedback as possible. I would like to especially request > attention of the ASF board members who asked for this type of > a document to be available. As a direct

Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:56 PM, John D. Ament wrote: > Roman, > > I don't think much is missing. One of my concerns with all of these > proposals, especially for participants like myself, is the difference in > how the IPMC operates vs how these PMCs must operate. For someone like me, > I would

Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

Thanks Roman, I think that it is unnecessary to mention "sub-projects" in this document. If an external codebase and community are going into an existing TLP, it is often possible to do so via an IP Clearance process, depending on size of external community. // Niclas On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:31

RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

eneral@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org> Cc: Bertrand Delacretaz<mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org>; Sam Ruby<mailto:ru...@intertwingly.net>; bo...@apache.org<mailto:bo...@apache.org> Subject: RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document I may be taking

RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

/‎2/‎2015 5:31 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org>; Bertrand Delacretaz<mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org>; Sam Ruby<mailto:ru...@intertwingly.net> Cc: Apache Board<mailto:bo...@apache.org> Subject: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTL

RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

t: ‎3/‎2/‎2015 7:33 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org>; > Bertrand Delacretaz<mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org>; Sam Ruby ru...@intertwingly.net> > Cc: Apache Board<mailto:bo...@apache.org> > Subject: Re: Soliciting feedback for a detaile

RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

eneral@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org>; Bertrand Delacretaz<mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org>; Sam Ruby<mailto:ru...@intertwingly.net> Cc: Apache Board<mailto:bo...@apache.org> Subject: Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document I obviously sp

Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

‎2/‎2015 6:56 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org>; > Bertrand Delacretaz<mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org>; Sam Ruby<mailto:rubys@ > intertwingly.net> > Cc: Apache Board<mailto:bo...@apache.org> > Subject: Re: Soliciting feedback for

RE: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

Delacretaz<mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org>; Sam Ruby<mailto:ru...@intertwingly.net> Cc: Apache Board<mailto:bo...@apache.org> Subject: Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document Roman, I don't think much is missing. One of my concerns with all

Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

Roman, I don't think much is missing. One of my concerns with all of these proposals, especially for participants like myself, is the difference in how the IPMC operates vs how these PMCs must operate. For someone like me, I wouldn't be able to help these pTLP's the way I can on the IPMC. >From

Re: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

and Delacretaz , Sam Ruby Cc: Apache Board Subject: Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document >Hi! > >since a few board members requested a detailed document >outlining the exact policy of a pTLP project, I've created this: > >https://cwiki.apache.org/confl

Soliciting feedback for a detailed pTLP policy document

Hi! since a few board members requested a detailed document outlining the exact policy of a pTLP project, I've created this: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=51812862 which is modeled after the Incubator policy document. My rationale is this: if the level of deta