> Ok its been nearly a week and there is overwhelming support for doing
> this so I have gone ahead and made an update to the PPMC guide to
> reflect this [policy change].
Let's remember to add this to next month's Board report.
--- Noel
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 8:20 AM, ant elder wrote:
> I'd like to propose that the process for Incubator poddlings to make
> someone a new committer is simplified so that all that is needed are
> votes from poddling committers and that there is no longer any need
> for votes from Incubator PMC membe
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Craig L Russell
wrote:
> Assuming that no one comes forward with a significant reason to disallow
> this, I'd just request that you not call a VOTE until you have an update to
> the incubator page that describes the process.
>
> In other words, let's DISCUSS and t
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:20 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> I'd like to propose that the process for Incubator poddlings to make
>> someone a new committer is simplified so that all that is needed are
>> votes from poddling committers and that there is no longer any need
>> for votes from Incubator PM
Hi Mohammad Nour El-Din,
On Nov 17, 2010, at 4:01 PM, Mohammad Nour El-Din wrote:
Hi Craig...
I think this is not a formal vote,
no disagreement
it is like an acceptance vote
no disagreement
before going into the formality of a real vote,
and before we go into a real vote we need t
Hi Craig...
I think this is not a formal vote, it is like an acceptance vote
before going into the formality of a real vote, so the voting thread
is not full of a lot of *dicussion* e-mails which can drift the voting
thread away from its purpose :).
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Craig L Ru
Assuming that no one comes forward with a significant reason to
disallow this, I'd just request that you not call a VOTE until you
have an update to the incubator page that describes the process.
In other words, let's DISCUSS and then VOTE on the change to the
process page.
Craig
On Nov
+1 (with the one required mentor/IPMC vote and notifying private@)
david jencks
On Nov 12, 2010, at 7:41 AM, Glen Daniels wrote:
> +1 from me.
>
> I also agree with Bertrand's point about notifying private@, and would be OK
> with requiring a (single) mentor/IPMC vote to ensure that someone is
+1 @ Benson, so if that only one vote is not there, the vote is not accepted.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Benson Margulies
wrote:
> +1 to the proposal.
>
>> What makes me uneasy about this is that, notwithstanding the one
>> mentor vote, we are basically saying that the bar for ASF
>> commi
+1 to the proposal.
> What makes me uneasy about this is that, notwithstanding the one
> mentor vote, we are basically saying that the bar for ASF
> committership can now be defined solely by a group of people who might
> have no knowledge, as yet, of "the Apache way" in general and the way
> meri
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Martin Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:20 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> I'd like to propose that the process for Incubator poddlings to make
>> someone a new committer is simplified so that all that is needed are
>> votes from poddling committers and that the
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:20 AM, ant elder wrote:
> I'd like to propose that the process for Incubator poddlings to make
> someone a new committer is simplified so that all that is needed are
> votes from poddling committers and that there is no longer any need
> for votes from Incubator PMC memb
+1 on the idea with at least one mandatory vote from a mentor and and
voting is done on project's private mailing list.
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
>
> On Nov 12, 2010, at 2:20 AM, ant elder wrote:
>
>> I'd like to propose that the process for Incubator poddlings to make
>
On Nov 12, 2010, at 2:20 AM, ant elder wrote:
> I'd like to propose that the process for Incubator poddlings to make
> someone a new committer is simplified so that all that is needed are
> votes from poddling committers and that there is no longer any need
> for votes from Incubator PMC members
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:20 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> As Bertrand said, I'm ok with requiring at least one mentor voting and
>> notice sent to private@ *afterwards*. -- justin
>
> +1 to the combined proposal
+1 from me too.
Cheers
--
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 8:20 AM, ant elder wrote:
> I'd like to propose that the process for Incubator poddlings to make
> someone a new committer is simplified so that all that is needed are
> votes from poddling committers and that there is no longer any need
> for votes from Incubator PMC membe
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:20 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> I'd like to propose that the process for Incubator poddlings to make
>> someone a new committer is simplified so that all that is needed are
>> votes from poddling committers and that t
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:20 AM, ant elder wrote:
> I'd like to propose that the process for Incubator poddlings to make
> someone a new committer is simplified so that all that is needed are
> votes from poddling committers and that there is no longer any need
> for votes from Incubator PMC memb
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:20 AM, ant elder wrote:
> I'd like to propose that the process for Incubator poddlings to make
> someone a new committer is simplified so that all that is needed are
> votes from poddling committers and that there is no longer any need
> for votes from Incubator PMC memb
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Glen Daniels wrote:
> ...I also agree with Bertrand's point about notifying private@, and would be
> OK
> with requiring a (single) mentor/IPMC vote to ensure that someone is paying
> attention... but it would be nice if we didn't need two
Ok, one mentor is e
+1 from me.
I also agree with Bertrand's point about notifying private@, and would be OK
with requiring a (single) mentor/IPMC vote to ensure that someone is paying
attention... but it would be nice if we didn't need two.
--Glen
On 11/12/2010 3:20 AM, ant elder wrote:
> I'd like to propose that
+1 from me...
Cheers,
Chris
On 11/12/10 12:20 AM, "ant elder" wrote:
I'd like to propose that the process for Incubator poddlings to make
someone a new committer is simplified so that all that is needed are
votes from poddling committers and that there is no longer any need
for votes from Incu
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 9:20 AM, ant elder wrote:
> I'd like to propose that the process for Incubator poddlings to make
> someone a new committer is simplified so that all that is needed are
> votes from poddling committers and that there is no longer any need
> for votes from Incubator PMC
I'd like to propose that the process for Incubator poddlings to make
someone a new committer is simplified so that all that is needed are
votes from poddling committers and that there is no longer any need
for votes from Incubator PMC members or a separate Incubator PMC vote.
As justification, thi
On Wednesday, September 17, 2003, at 10:00 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
PMC and ASF members. There were 3 separate camps, but more
"There were 3" --> "There weren't 3"
---
big difference :)
-
To unsubsc
On Tuesday, September 16, 2003, at 06:15 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
The root of the problem here is that most of the ASF (including myself)
was not really aware of a lot of the rationale for why the httpd PMC
was
constructed and managed in the fashion it is. About this time last
year,
we had a *lot*
26 matches
Mail list logo
