Technically this release candidate is almost identical to RC4. I did a
quick test and build on a clean VM. Everything looks fine.
+1
Daniel
Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote on Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 20:20:26 -0800:
> Thanks Christian.
>
> I'll accept, thanks for your kind words, and for those of Marvin and
> Joe, and the comments from Benson and others.
>
> I will note that should I be elected into this role, I will state that
> I don'
Hi,
I can't abstain from taking part (the call of the patriotic spirit).
Jokes apart, I'm strongly interested in Identity Management (I have been
looking for a good solution without success for a long time) and I would be
honored to give my contribution.
So I'm going to take the freedom to add myse
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 00:58, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
>...
> And to be honest, even if you (Bill) or the board folks think
> that there should be an Incubation VP, are you willing to at least
> try it my way, and then if all hell breaks loose, simply add the role
> in 6 months (or sooner,
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:28 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > While the last release candidate found a lot of acceptance (3 binding +1
> in
> > the ppmc) it had to be withdrawn because of missing or incorrect NOTICE
> and
> > li
On 3 February 2012 01:13, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 12:52:33AM +0100, Leo Simons wrote:
>> The basic idea is to split the current single really big group that is
>> the incubator into smaller groups that still cooperate and discuss and
>> whatnot, but are accountable and ove
On 03/02/2012 10:35, Maurizio Cucchiara wrote:
Hi,
I can't abstain from taking part (the call of the patriotic spirit).
Jokes apart, I'm strongly interested in Identity Management (I have been
looking for a good solution without success for a long time) and I would be
honored to give my contribut
Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
:-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
thoughts/positioning below.
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:25, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> Wow... a post that was too long even for me :) We might want to break
> t
2012/2/3 Reto Bachmann-Gmür
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:28 AM, ant elder wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür
> > wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > While the last release candidate found a lot of acceptance (3 binding
> +1
> > in
> > > the ppmc) it had to be withdrawn be
Ok, thanks.
So I withdraw this release candidate, address CLEREZZA-682 and will propose
RC6 asap.
Reto
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Tommaso Teofili
wrote:
> 2012/2/3 Reto Bachmann-Gmür
>
> > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:28 AM, ant elder wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Reto Bac
Hi Chris,
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> ...I wouldn't have much problem with this, so long as I make it
> clear that my intention isn't to remain in the position for longer than
> one month, two months, whatever it takes to move towards
> proposal/resolution an
It seems to me that the proposed new scheme will take quite a bit of
setting up. There is some writing to do. More to the point, if I were
the board, I would want to pilot the new scheme for some time before
tearing down the existing incubator. All of this looks to me like more
than 2 months.
A tr
Hello Raymond,
i forwarded your request to the ipmc private list. Currently there is
much discussion going on on various topics so your question might be
overseen here.
Besides that, you are right, as a Member you can join on request and
yes, you need to join the IPMC to mentor a project. It is o
On 3 February 2012 12:33, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> wrote:
>> ...I wouldn't have much problem with this, so long as I make it
>> clear that my intention isn't to remain in the position for longer than
>> one month, two mo
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 00:58, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> wrote:
>>...
>> And to be honest, even if you (Bill) or the board folks think
>> that there should be an Incubation VP, are you willing to at least
>> try it my way, and then if all hell b
On Feb 3, 2012, at 12:58 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator-pmc
>
> Shane [check]
> Doug [check]
> Roy [no]
> Jim [check]
> Brett [check]
> Larry [no]
> Sam [check]
> Greg [check]
>
> So that's 7 of 9 board members that are on the
One thing I would like to be bantered about:
Long ago, it was customary to have a single mentor for a podling.
Nowadays, the feelings are the more, the merrier.
Has the above been an experiment which succeeded, failed or is moot?
Justify your decision.
---
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> It seems to me that the proposed new scheme will take quite a bit of
> setting up. There is some writing to do. More to the point, if I were
> the board, I would want to pilot the new scheme for some time before
> tearing down the existing
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> ...Long ago, it was customary to have a single mentor for a podling.
> Nowadays, the feelings are the more, the merrier
One *active* mentor is good enough for most podlings, but expecting
the mentor to be always available is not realistic
Hello,
As announced aerlier today I've created a new distribution addressing the
two issues with RC5. The assembly for the binary distribution has been
changed to put a copy of the notice in the distribution directory. The
readme has been adapted as suggested by Ant. As this candidate addresses
is
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> One thing I would like to be bantered about:
>
> Long ago, it was customary to have a single mentor for a podling.
> Nowadays, the feelings are the more, the merrier.
>
> Has the above been an experiment which succeeded, failed or is moot?
> J
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:07 PM, ant elder wrote:
>... A problem with multiple mentors is that with no single person
> responsible its too easy for no one to do any mentoring because they
> all leave the work for the others to do. The recent change to the
> Champion role (what happened with that?)
On Feb 2, 2012 11:20 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> Hi Benson,
>
> I wouldn't have much problem with this, so long as I make it
> clear that my intention isn't to remain in the position for longer than
> one month, two months, whatever it takes to move to
Hi Daniel,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 1:29 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote on Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 20:20:26 -0800:
>> Thanks Christian.
>>
>> I'll accept, thanks for your kind words, and for those of Marvin and
>> Joe, and the comments from Benson and others.
>>
>> I will not
Hi Bertrand,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> wrote:
>> ...I wouldn't have much problem with this, so long as I make it
>> clear that my intention isn't to remain in the position for longer than
>>
Thanks, Christian.
Raymond Feng
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:51 AM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> Hello Raymond,
>
> i forwarded your request to the ipmc private list. Currently there is
> much discussion going on on various topics so your question might be
> overseen here.
>
> Bes
Hi Bertrand,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> wrote:
>> ...I wouldn't have much problem with this, so long as I make it
>> clear that my intention isn't to remain in the position for longer than
>>
Hi Greg,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 1:44 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 00:58, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> wrote:
>> ...
>> And to be honest, even if you (Bill) or the board folks think
>> that there should be an Incubation VP, are you willing to at least
>> try it my way, and then if all
Hey Greg,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
> :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
> thoughts/positioning below.
I was in "sort of concurrence" as well.
I think what you guys are pro
Hi Benson,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:34 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> It seems to me that the proposed new scheme will take quite a bit of
> setting up. There is some writing to do. More to the point, if I were
> the board, I would want to pilot the new scheme for some time before
> tearing down the e
Hi Sam,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:50 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 00:58, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> And to be honest, even if you (Bill) or the board folks think
>>> that there should be an Incubation VP, are yo
Hi Jim,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:55 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> [...snip...]
>>
>> So that's 7 of 9 board members that are on the Incubator PMC, and
>> a good chance they are here now, and reading this.
>>
>> What do Board members think? IPMC hats on? Great. Board
>> hats on? Great too. Would be gr
Hi Greg,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 7:22 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2012 11:20 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
> chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Benson,
>>
>> I wouldn't have much problem with this, so long as I make it
>> clear that my intention isn't to remain in the position f
On Feb 3, 2012, at 8:22 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> Hi Bertrand,
>
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:33 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:24 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
>> wrote:
>>> ...I wouldn't have much problem with this, so long as I make it
>>>
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:50 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>
>> What I care most about is
>> addressed by this proposal: that there be an identified person to
>> which feedback can be directed for each report.
>
> Sure, I get that now. I'm +1 t
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
> :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
> thoughts/positioning below.
While I agree that in an ideal world that's how things *ought* to
operate, do
Hey Sam,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 9:05 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:50 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What I care most about is
>>> addressed by this proposal: that there be an identified person to
>>> which feedback
Hi,
> Syncope proposal [1] is still looking for more mentors: who is
> interested in Identity Management and wants to get involved in one of
> first Open Source projects in this field?
I am interested in this project and would like to come on board as a
mentor if possible. I'm an ASF member and w
Hi,
[Forking a new thread thread to make this easier to track.]
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/IncubatorDeconstructionProposal
As already mentioned by others, instead of deconstructing everything
in one go, wouldn't it make mor
On 03/02/2012 18:23, Colm O hEigeartaigh wrote:
Hi,
Syncope proposal [1] is still looking for more mentors: who is
interested in Identity Management and wants to get involved in one of
first Open Source projects in this field?
I am interested in this project and would like to come on board as
+1 on this. Work the bugs out before everyone transitions.
Karl
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [Forking a new thread thread to make this easier to track.]
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> wrote:
>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/
On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
>> :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
>> thoughts/positioning below.
>
> While I agree that in an ideal
On 2/3/2012 8:07 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
>> It seems to me that the proposed new scheme will take quite a bit of
>> setting up. There is some writing to do. More to the point, if I were
>> the board, I would want to pilot the new scheme for
On 2/3/2012 7:58 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> One thing I would like to be bantered about:
>
> Long ago, it was customary to have a single mentor for a podling.
> Nowadays, the feelings are the more, the merrier.
By the same measure, there is a role of Champion. If we can avoid
fracturing that rol
On 2/3/2012 11:47 AM, Karl Wright wrote:
> +1 on this. Work the bugs out before everyone transitions.
One doesn't preclude the other. As I wrote in response to an almost
entirely different thread, Podlings are accountable to the Incubator
PMC. A Project, Incubating would be accountable to the p
Hey Bill,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 10:19 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
>>> :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him
On Feb 3, 2012, at 10:24 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 8:07 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>>
>>> [...snippage...]
>>>
>>> I just don't think it is realistic to imagine that in 60 days from
>>> some near-term board meeting, we can set up this new plan, debug it,
>>> and transition the exist
>-Original Message-
>From: Jukka Zitting [mailto:jukka.zitt...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:27 PM
>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)
>
>Hi,
>
>[Forking a new thread thread to make this easier to trac
On 2/3/2012 12:51 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>
> So that everyone affected by these proposals has the opportunity to engage in
> the discussion, I recommend that we pull these out of e-mail for a while and
> ask everyone who has a new "plan" for the incubator to draft proposals on the
> wi
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 14:04, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 12:51 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>>
>> So that everyone affected by these proposals has the opportunity to engage
>> in the discussion, I recommend that we pull these out of e-mail for a while
>> and ask everyone who has
On 02/03/2012 06:47 PM, Karl Wright wrote:
+1 on this. Work the bugs out before everyone transitions.
+1 on that
Ate
Karl
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
Hi,
[Forking a new thread thread to make this easier to track.]
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Mattmann, Chr
>-Original Message-
>From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 2:13 PM
>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)
>
>On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 14:04, William A. Rowe Jr.
>wrote:
>> On 2/3/2
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Maurizio Cucchiara
wrote:
> Hi,
> I can't abstain from taking part (the call of the patriotic spirit).
> Jokes apart, I'm strongly interested in Identity Management (I have been
> looking for a good solution without success for a long time) and I would be
> honored
On 02/03/2012 08:35 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 2:13 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Evolution instead of a revolution (Was: Time to vote the chair?)
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bill annoys me sometimes
>>> :-P, but I have to say that I'm in 100% concurrence with him w.r.t
>
I believe there is a minor typo below:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 17:00, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> wrote:
>> On 2/3/2012 11:11 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
Below is *precisely* my view on the matter. Bi
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead
> of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
> playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or infra or press
> or...). In particular, when problems arise
On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead
>> of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
>> playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or inf
On 02/02/2012 09:58 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> What do Board members think? IPMC hats on? Great. Board
> hats on? Great too. Would be great to get opinions now
> rather than have to wait.
I like the simplicity of erasing the layer of management that is the
Incubator.
The board is a
At this point I am going to frankly campaign for myself.
I am willing to be the chair of the incubator as we know it, and
strive to incrementally improve it. I have no objection to that
process including a deliberate consideration of Chris' proposal for a
radical restructuring. Given some time, th
On 2/3/2012 4:46 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>> On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead
>>> of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incub
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead
>> of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
>> playing a role much like legal or trademarks (or
On Feb 3, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 14:04, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> On 2/3/2012 12:51 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>>>
>>> So that everyone affected by these proposals has the opportunity to engage
>>> in the discussion, I recommend that we pull thes
On 2/3/2012 5:55 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> "Disbanding" the PMC seems to me to be a very reactionary approach to the
> problem.
That's because disbanding the IPMC isn't in response to /that/ problem,
so little wonder you are confused.
Disbanding the IPMC, and making PPMC contributors part of
Howdy-
The Giraph project is excited to ask incubator for a vote on our first release.
The vote passed within the project as follows:
PPMC +1s x 4: Avery, Hyunsik, Jake, Claudio
Mentors +1s x 1: Owen
Peanut gallery +1s x 1: Harsh
Release notes:
http://people.apache.org/~jghoman/giraph-0.1.0-incu
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Feb 3, 2012 4:27 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 1:44 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 00:58, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> > wrote:
> >> ...
On 3 February 2012 23:38, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> There is a place in the middle, which very much intrigues me. Instead
>>> of replacing 1 IPMC with n PMCs, having n+1 PMCs, with the Incubator
>>>
On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:20 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 5:55 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>> "Disbanding" the PMC seems to me to be a very reactionary approach to the
>> problem.
>
> That's because disbanding the IPMC isn't in response to /that/ problem,
> so little wonder you are c
My biggest problem is that the proposal moves undefined responsibilities to
ComDev while none of the candidates have actually spoken to ComDev about
this.
Doesn't that strike the candidates as a little odd?
l want to know what ComDev is being asked to do. The proposal in the wiki
is not clear in
On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> The incubator had demonstrated that relying on mentors is not always
> sufficient. The incubator has failed in it's guidance rule. It has turned
> to oversight and interference. Your proposal, in it's current form, will
> remove the interferenc
On 2/3/2012 7:06 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> It would be perfectly reasonable to me for the IPMC to find other ways for a
> PPMC to have binding votes.
I don't see a reasonable alternative structure. Feel free to propose one.
I explored the idea of having subcommittees make these releases. Tha
On 2/3/2012 7:06 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> Do any of the candidates want to take a little time to define the role they
> see for ComDev?
Sounds like additional documentation for the proposal
Committee: Previous responsibility <---> Revised responsibility
_ __
On 4 February 2012 01:06, Ralph Goers wrote:
> The main problem I see, and what Joe seems to complain about a lot, is that
> mentors seem to fail at mentoring. Creating a
> project that reports to the board whose mentors stop mentoring just pushes
> the problem to the board, which is IMO not wh
On 2/3/2012 7:19 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 4 February 2012 01:06, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> The main problem I see, and what Joe seems to complain about a lot, is that
>> mentors seem to fail at mentoring. Creating a
>> project that reports to the board whose mentors stop mentoring just pushes
>
On 3 February 2012 23:17, Benson Margulies wrote:
> One way to make the load lighter is to try to make one decision at a
> time.
+1
> Entirely selfishly, I suggest looking at the chair election
> first.
All nominees have said they back the radical reform plan. That plan as
it currently stands r
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:17 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 7:06 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>> It would be perfectly reasonable to me for the IPMC to find other ways for a
>> PPMC to have binding votes.
>
> I don't see a reasonable alternative structure. Feel free to propose one.
I t
Hi Ross,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
> On Feb 3, 2012 4:27 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
> chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> On Feb 3, 2012, at 1:44 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>>> On
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:27 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 7:19 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> On 4 February 2012 01:06, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>> The main problem I see, and what Joe seems to complain about a lot, is that
>>> mentors seem to fail at mentoring. Creating a
>>> project that r
Hey Bill,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:18 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 7:06 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
>> Do any of the candidates want to take a little time to define the role they
>> see for ComDev?
>
> Sounds like additional documentation for the proposal
>
> Committee: Previous re
On 2/3/2012 7:38 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> All nominees have said they back the radical reform plan. That plan as
> it currently stands reads, to me, as "nuke the IPMC and pass all
> responsibility for ensuring projects are adequately mentored to
> ComDev."
Ross, I'm not a candidate. But I ce
On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>
> I thought I did. The proposal that Chris put forth seems to make podlings
> formal PMCs that report to the board simply so they have authority to vote on
> releases, add new committers, etc.. My proposal is to give podlings the
> authority to mak
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> [...snip...]
>>
>> My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though. Incubator is very
>> tedious. Very little is resolved. Deck chairs are shuffled. But at
>> the end of the day, projects don't have ownership of their code, many
>> micro-man
On 2/3/2012 7:47 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:27 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>
>> The existing problem remains the revised problem. Any solution applicable
>> to the IPMC intervening in a dysfunctional PPMC applies to the Champion and
>> VP, Incubator intervening in a dysfu
On Feb 3, 2012, at 5:57 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>>
>> I thought I did. The proposal that Chris put forth seems to make podlings
>> formal PMCs that report to the board simply so they have authority to vote
>> on releases, add new committers
On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though. Incubator is very
>> tedious. Very little is resolved. Deck chairs are shuffled. But at
>> the end of the day, projects don't have ownership of their code, many
>> micro-managers do, we aren't nec
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:01 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 7:47 PM, Ralph Goers wrote
>>
>>
>> Well, to be blunt, that sucks.
>
> No. In all reality, it doesn't. Far too many resources were drained in
> the past five years on a handful of projects which never had a hope of
> gradua
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>
>>> My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though. Incubator is very
>>> tedious. Very little is resolved. Deck chairs are shuffled. But at
>>> the end of the day, projects don't have ow
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 3 February 2012 23:17, Benson Margulies wrote:
>> One way to make the load lighter is to try to make one decision at a
>> time.
>
> +1
>
>> Entirely selfishly, I suggest looking at the chair election
>> first.
>
> All nominees have said the
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>
My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though. Incubator is very
tedious. Very little is resolved. Deck chairs are shuffl
Hi Jakob,
My suggestion: let it run for "at least" 72 hours.
It doesn't need to close until you've got all the VOTEs you need,
and at least for 72 hours.
And yes I intend to review it and VOTE. :)
Cheers,
Chris
On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:35 PM, Jakob Homan wrote:
> Howdy-
> The Giraph project is ex
On 4 February 2012 01:47, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 4:41 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 2012 4:27 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <
>> chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>>
...
> if you'll recall Jim's message
> to the members in the past 2 years about "intern
On 2/3/12 9:28 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)"
wrote:
>On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:05 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/3/2012 7:40 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
> My interest goes beyond any of those topics, though. Incubator is
>
On 4 February 2012 01:56, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/3/2012 7:38 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>
>> All nominees have said they back the radical reform plan. That plan as
>> it currently stands reads, to me, as "nuke the IPMC and pass all
>> responsibility for ensuring projects are adequately me
On 4 February 2012 02:01, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
wrote:
...
>> Sounds like additional documentation for the proposal
>>
>> Committee: Previous responsibility <---> Revised responsibility
>> _ ___ __
>>
>> -
On Feb 3, 2012, at 7:16 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 4 February 2012 01:56, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> On 2/3/2012 7:38 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>
>>> All nominees have said they back the radical reform plan. That plan as
>>> it currently stands reads, to me, as "nuke the IPMC and pass all
>
Hi Ross,
On Feb 3, 2012, at 7:27 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 4 February 2012 02:01, Mattmann, Chris A (388J)
> wrote:
> ...
>
>>> Sounds like additional documentation for the proposal
>>>
>>> Committee: Previous responsibility <---> Revised responsibility
>>> _
On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:28 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>>
>> Your statement above could just as easily be applied to having each podling
>> be a subproject of the IPMC (as it is today), but be given the authority and
>> responsibility th
On 2/3/2012 9:01 PM, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
>
> Personally, I feel that walking in the door as a full PMC with authority
> could be just as problematic in the long run as not granting it once the
> community has demonstrated viability.
I think that everyone here agrees. These would not be '
On 2/3/2012 8:41 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Lets not forget that the model referred to *included* the IPMC. The
> IPMC once had a useful function, it was a safety net for fledgling
> communities.
The IPMC never served that purpose. Projects were scuttled even in
its first year.
The IPMC served to
On 2/3/2012 9:16 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 4 February 2012 01:56, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> Pass all responsibility for mentoring to the incubating projects and
>> the members, and responsibility for ensuring they are mentored to the
>> board.
>
> The projects then turn to where?
That
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
