On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Christian Grobmeier
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
>> wrote:
+1
And while we are at it, reduce Roles and Rules to a minimum.
>>>
>>> Pruning is always
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 9:38 AM, ant elder wrote:
> I do acknowledge that it can be really
> hard to get some things changed and you may need a thick skin and lots
> of perseverance. But lets try to demonstrate its possible - Christian
> tell us three things you'd like changed and we'll pick one
FYI
-- Forwarded message --
From: Mohammad Nour El-Din
Date: Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 2:25 PM
Subject: [RESULT][VOTE] Graduation to TLP
To: bval-...@incubator.apache.org
Hi...
I announce that, according to [1], this [VOTE] has passed successfully.
Will send a [RESULT] e-mail to
Apologies for not adding more details:
This [VOTE] has passed with 11 +1(s), no 0(s) and no -1(s), details:
Gerhard Petracek - gpetracek (*, +)
Mark Struberg - struberg (*, #, +)
Matt Benson - mbenson (#, +)
David Jencks - djencks (#, +)
Roman Stumm - romanstumm (*, +)
Simone Tripodi - simonetrip
Dear Apache members,
Over the past 2 months, the Kafka Apache incubator project has been trying
to release its very first version in Apache. After 7 RCs, we are still not
done. Part of this is because most of us are new to the Apache release
process and are learning things along the way. However,
- Original Message -
> From: Jun Rao
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: kafka-...@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 2:13 PM
> Subject: concerns about high overhead in Apache incubator releases
>
> Dear Apache members,
[...]
> 2. Different Apache members ha
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 9:38 AM, ant elder wrote:
>> I do acknowledge that it can be really
>> hard to get some things changed and you may need a thick skin and lots
>> of perseverance. But lets try to demonstrate its possible
Christian,
Your proposals read to me as an elaboration and extension of some of
the things I wrote. I think that Joe S's reaction to me, insofar as I
understand it, makes some sense.
Let's see if we can find a small group of members of the IPMC who are,
in fact, willing to take seriously the task
On Nov 27, 2011, at 11:21 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: Jun Rao
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: kafka-...@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 2:13 PM
>> Subject: concerns about high overhead in Apache incubator releases
I sympathize with you're comments, however, I do want to point out that the
problems are more to do with the Project committers and mentors than the
process (although documentation can always be improved).
As evidence I submit the Apache Rave poddling. This project made its first
release within a
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:41 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> Christian,
>
> Your proposals read to me as an elaboration and extension of some of
> the things I wrote. I think that Joe S's reaction to me, insofar as I
> understand it, makes some sense.
>
> Let's see if we can find a small group of me
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: Jun Rao
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc: kafka-...@incubator.apache.org
>> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 2:13 PM
>> Subject: concerns about high overhead in Apache incubator releases
>
>> If we can build such a group, it would be the logical nucleus of a
>> reboot. If not, well, we've got other problems.
>
> Care to give some specifics?
>
> Robert
Robert,
Between my posts at the top of this thread, and all the many messages
on Joe's (I think) thread about the board wanting to d
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2011, at 11:21 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>> From: Jun Rao
>>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>> Cc: kafka-...@incubator.apache.org
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 2:13
One piece of advice I've been kicking myself for not offering more
aggressively is this: ask for review before you bother to put up a
candidate for a vote. It's a lot less work.
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Jun Rao wrote:
> Dear Apache members,
>
> Over the past 2 months, the Kafka Apache incubator project has been trying
> to release its very first version in Apache. After 7 RCs, we are still not
> done. Part of this is because most of us are new to the Apache releas
Sorry screaming kids prevented me from reviewing properly. one sentence was
made incomprehensible by autocorrect...
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Nov 27, 2011 8:09 PM, "Ross Gardler" wrote:
>
> I sympathize with you're comments, however, I do want to point out
On Nov 27, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>>
>>> NO. The only time someone can claim to hold a veto over a release vote is
>>> when they are jibberjabbering about legal issues. NOTICE errors really
>>> don't risk a lawsuit from anyone, so those -1's are NOT vetoes.
>>
>> If Jo
- Original Message -
> From: Robert Burrell Donkin
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Joe Schaefer ; "kafka-...@incubator.apache.org"
>
> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2011 3:53 PM
> Subject: Re: concerns about high overhead in Apache incubator releases
>
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at
I guess one of the sticking points in all this is the notion
that a release MUST nominally comply with all Apache policies.
Formally, that means it meets the standards set out in
http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
as well as all of our adopted legal policies. That we tend
to sometimes debate
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> From: Robert Burrell Donkin
>> Any legal issue serious enough to VETO a release would require code
>> access to be blocked and all discussions taken private. Anything short
>> of this isn't a VETO.
>
> I wouldn't go that far. I mean if a
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> ...Let's see if we can find a small group of members of the IPMC who are,
> in fact, willing to take seriously the task of supervision
There is such a group already - even though that might be a small
percentage of the IPMC membership
I think I've been leading a sheltered existence. In the TLPs of which
I play a part, over the 5 years or so that I've been around, I've
never seen a release proceed past a -1. Every single time, a -1 has
led to recutting the release.
In some ways, I'd expect the incubator to be more conservative (
I guess I sent one email too many here. On the other thread, I was
perfectly happy to join the nacent consensus that the willing should
step up and supervise, as opposed to any sort of structural change.
I'm back there now. And, anyway, all if this is a hijack. This thread
started as 'how can we m
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
>> ...Let's see if we can find a small group of members of the IPMC who are,
>> in fact, willing to take seriously the task of supervision
>
> There is such a group alread
Hi all,
We could use another vote or two,
Thanks!
-P
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Benson Margulies
Sent: 11/25/2011 11:56 AM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release of Lucene.Net 2.9.4-incubating-RC3
Well, fine, I am happy to +1.
On Fr
Ross is 100% in identifying mentors as critical to a smooth release.
More specifically, mentors familiar with what a project is likely to
face in an Incubator vote.
I'm sorry to say that I was an AWOL mentor for the first 5 RCs. I
still wouldn't have anticipated the objections from the IPMC that-
OK, I'm sorry, but leviadocs??!!
I'll buy you a beer for that AWESOME word :-) BTW, I agree with all
of your points below, dude. In fact, to add to them, I would suggest
my approach is simply what i learned from Justin, Jukka, Joe S. and
others -- teach the project how to build community, to lea
I did not see anyone say RTFM, did you? As I have repeatedly said,
the documentation is just as much to keep the IPMC in line as it is
to keep our podlings. And yes we do need to distinguish between
teaching podlings best practices, which can be done over time,
and performing policy enforcement,
On 28 November 2011 00:46, Chris Douglas wrote:
> I reject the RTFM
> suggestion as trolling.
I never aid RTFM. I said the documentation in conjunction with mentors guidance.
I also said the documentation needs work and asked for specific
pointers as to where.
Furthermore I supported Joe's comm
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> I did not see anyone say RTFM, did you?
That's how I read Ross's account of the Rave project (mentor pointed
to the docs, RM read them, monthly releases bloomed). I don't think
that was an ungenerous reading, but characterizing it as RTFM may
I suggest we discuss documentation work right here. It will be a welcome
change to discuss our work instead of simply our opinions.
- Original Message -
> From: Chris Douglas
> To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer
> Cc: "kafka-...@incubator.apache.org"
> Sent: Sunday, Novemb
On 28 November 2011 02:01, Chris Douglas wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> I did not see anyone say RTFM, did you?
>
> That's how I read Ross's account of the Rave project (mentor pointed
> to the docs, RM read them, monthly releases bloomed). I don't think
> that w
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> I think you missed a very important part of what I said, let me quote
> the para you refer to:
[snip]
> My point is we can't expect the mentors to type everything over and
> over again for every podling, that's why we have docs. We can (and
>
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
>> ...Let's see if we can find a small group of members of the IPMC who are,
>> in fact, willing to take seriously the task of supervision
>
> There is such a group alrea
On Sunday, November 27, 2011 4:37 PM, "Benson Margulies"
wrote:
> So could we please treat this thread as CLOSED? If you want to plan a
> palace coup, why not start a new thread?
The subject line /was/ changed.
-
To unsubscri
36 matches
Mail list logo
