+1 (binding)
Paul
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Indika Kumara wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> ~ Indika
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Ross Gardler >wrote:
>
> > I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1].
> >
> > I want to clarify that this vote is for the
+1 (non-binding)
thanks
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Paul Fremantle wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> Paul
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Indika Kumara >wrote:
>
> > +1 (non-binding)
> >
> > ~ Indika
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Ross Gardler <
> rgard...@opendirective.com
On Jun 14, 2013 11:50 PM, "Ross Gardler" wrote:
>
> I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1].
>
> I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter
> the incubator as a standard podling under the existing incubation
> policy. The acceptance or othe
On Friday, June 14, 2013, Ross Gardler wrote:
> I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1].
>
> I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter
> the incubator as a standard podling under the existing incubation
> policy. The acceptance or otherwis
On 14 June 2013 18:11, Mattmann, Chris A (398J)
wrote:
> 2. It's harder to discharge a pTLP rather than a podling
>
> Jim, Ross: It's going to be harder to pick up the pieces if pTLPs are
> unsuccessful, than
> it would be for a podling.
I think that is a misrepresentation of what has been said.
I proposed this a year or so ago. It was fairly soundly rejected for a
number of reasons, the two I recall (because I felt they had
significant merit) were:
a) adds additional hierarchy
b) impossible to decide where a project best fits
These two things together give the potential for silos.
I do
+1 (non-binding)
-Sebastien
On Jun 15, 2013, at 6:31 AM, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya
wrote:
> On Friday, June 14, 2013, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1].
>>
>> I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter
>>
+1 (non-binding)
thanks,
Thilina
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Sebastien Goasguen wrote:
> +1 (non-binding)
>
> -Sebastien
>
> On Jun 15, 2013, at 6:31 AM, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <
> nandana@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, June 14, 2013, Ross Gardler
> wrote:
> >> I would like to
On 6/14/2013 8:25 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
...
Do we really want jakarta@i.a.o or hadoop@i.a.o?
...
ROTFLOL! But the Jakarta project was so fun!
- Shane
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For ad
+1
On Friday, June 14, 2013, Ross Gardler wrote:
> I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1].
>
> I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter
> the incubator as a standard podling under the existing incubation
> policy. The acceptance or othe
I think there's merit in the idea of multiple, smaller incubators, so
long as it is set up in a way that doesn't involve prospective podlings
playing the incubators against each other.
Smaller groups, with smaller membership, gives the chance of a greater
sense of ownership and identification, whi
I'm with Alan on our penchant to solve people
problems with reorganization. We lack tangible
means of measuring and recognizing that actual
oversight is happening in these podlings. And
by that I mean that somebody is actually following
along as the project develops and providing them
with requis
+1 binding
Regards,
Alan
On Jun 14, 2013, at 2:49 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1].
>
> I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter
> the incubator as a standard podling under the existing incubation
> p
On Jun 15, 2013, at 7:16 AM, Upayavira wrote:
> I think there's merit in the idea of multiple, smaller incubators, so
> long as it is set up in a way that doesn't involve prospective podlings
> playing the incubators against each other.
Can you provide detail on what you mean by "prospective po
What we really need for podlings is a "bill of
rights" towards what they can expect of their
mentors, because too few of them actually are
willing to question the participation of the
people who signed up to mentor them and that's
not helping anybody.
>
> From: Al
On Jun 14, 2013, at 3:58 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> I.e. while the IPMC or ComDev or whoever would still set policy and provide
> community best practice guidance. But then separate mailing lists/groups
> would provide actual oversight of podlings (incoming, mentoring, graduating).
> These
On Jun 15, 2013, at 8:08 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> What we really need for podlings is a "bill of
> rights" towards what they can expect of their
> mentors, because too few of them actually are
> willing to question the participation of the
> people who signed up to mentor them and that's
> not h
I'll let it stew for a coupla days before
I start charging in, but yeah something
along these lines will surely address the
palpable feeling of disempowerment we too
often dish out.
>
> From: Alan Cabrera
>To: general@incubator.apache.org; Joe Schaefer
>Sent: S
Brother, you hit the nail on the head. I am so there :)
Regards,
Alan
On Jun 15, 2013, at 8:34 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> I'll let it stew for a coupla days before
> I start charging in, but yeah something
> along these lines will surely address the
> palpable feeling of disempowerment
Problem: we seem to have unclear and conflicting ideas as to what the areas of
improvement are for the Incubator.
Cause: we have no concrete, anonymized, information on what the podlings'
experiences were during incubation.
Solution: require all podlings to submit anonymous exit interviews as
Problem: podlings are confused on where to go when there's a problem.
Cause: we seem to collect/handle/organize problems in an ad hoc manner and
sometimes mentors are the problem.
Solution: we create an elected Incubator Ombudsman.
Regards,
Alan
---
+1 (non-binding)
Regards
Lahiru
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos proposal [1].
>
> I want to clarify that this vote is for the Stratos project to enter
> the incubator as a standard podling under the existing incub
Hey Ross,
Thanks for taking the time to reply. Mine are inline below:
-Original Message-
From: Ross Gardler
Reply-To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Date: Saturday, June 15, 2013 3:50 AM
To: "general@incubator.apache.org"
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Merits of pTLP idea
>On 14 June 2013 18
The Board is always the responsible party, but in the sense that you mean
"responsibility in finding a fix", then I fully agree.
IMO, if a pTLP gets into the weeds, then the Board will just say "fix
yourself within six months, or we dismantle you".
Cheers,
-g
On Jun 15, 2013 2:58 AM, "Ross Gardle
Ok Alan I'm done hacking on the page for now.
Have at it folks, if you so choose.
>
> From: Apache Wiki
>To: Apache Wiki
>Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 12:52 PM
>Subject: [Incubator Wiki] Update of "PodlingBillOfRights" by JoeSchaefer
>
>
>Dear Wiki user,
>
>Y
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 15 Jun 2013 16:53, "Alan Cabrera" wrote:
>
>
> Problem: podlings are confused on where to go when there's a problem.
>
> Cause: we seem to collect/handle/organize problems in an ad hoc manner
and sometimes mentors are the problem.
>
I'm not keen on this one. I don't like surveys and I don't like mandatory
activities for volunteers.
However, a pro-active invitation to feedback on experiences at any time
during incubation or shortly after would be good. Even better would be
recruiting more valuable people from podlings as mento
+1
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 15 Jun 2013 16:04, "Alan Cabrera" wrote:
>
> On Jun 15, 2013, at 7:16 AM, Upayavira wrote:
>
> > I think there's merit in the idea of multiple, smaller incubators, so
> > long as it is set up in a way that doesn't involve prosp
Agreed on the undesirability of making survey participation mandatory. On the
wiki page in question I framed it as a right that surveys are available fwiw.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 15, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> I'm not keen on this one. I don't like surveys and I don't like ma
This is a suggestion that has come up in the past, and the typical
counter-argument is that this is something the chair needs to provide
themselves.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 15, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
> On 15 Jun
+1, I'm with Ross. I'm not keen on mandatory anything but the minimal
necessity to keep the ship and the foundation rolling.
However, knowing Alan, maybe the tools will simply be set up and available
to those that want to use them. Joe put as much in his start at the Bill of
Rights.
Cheers,
Chris
+1, the chair is already the Ombudsman. Or should be at least.
No need for duplication and more overhead (and confusion).
++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office:
+1 binding.
Cheers,
Chris
++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~matt
-0, because the proposal was not frozen and has been edited since the VOTE
started.
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/StratosProposal?action=diff&rev1=46&rev2=47
Marvin Humphrey
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> I would like to invite the IPMC vote to accept the Stratos pro
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Alan Cabrera wrote:
>
> Problem: podlings are confused on where to go when there's a problem.
>
> Cause: we seem to collect/handle/organize problems in an ad hoc manner and
> sometimes mentors are the problem.
>
> Solution: we create an elected Incubator Ombudsma
FWIW I support the proposal, just pointing out why this idea hasn't gained
traction over the years.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 15, 2013, at 2:48 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (398J)"
wrote:
> +1, the chair is already the Ombudsman. Or should be at least.
> No need for duplication and more overhead (
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Alan Cabrera wrote:
> Problem: podlings are confused on where to go when there's a problem.
>
> Cause: we seem to collect/handle/organize problems in an ad hoc manner and
> sometimes mentors are the problem.
>
> Solution: we create an elected Incubator Ombudsman.
This argument reminds me of the current debate in Congress about whether or not
military sex offense reporting should remain within the chain of command.
Proponents argue that it's hard to hold commanders accountable if they aren't
empowered to act; adversaries say victims are afraid to report w
Marvin,
That change was agreed in the discuss thread. I failed to look to see if it
had been made before I called the vote. My bad.
Ross
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse mistakes and brevity
On 15 Jun 2013 19:56, "Marvin Humphrey" wrote:
> -0, because the proposal was not frozen and ha
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> What we really need for podlings is a "bill of
> rights" towards what they can expect of their
> mentors, because too few of them actually are
> willing to question the participation of the
> people who signed up to mentor them and that's
> n
The Wave community has voted on and approved the proposal to release
Apache Wave 0.4 (incubating) based on RC3.
This will be the initial incubator release for Wave.
The proposal for release can be found at:
https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-wave-dev/201306.mbox/%3ccabrgrvd6n5_ll
Le 6/13/13 11:03 PM, Benson Margulies a écrit :
> Incubator community,
>
> I have tendered my resignation as VP, Incubator. The PMC has recommend
> Marvin Humphrey as my successor in a motion submitted to the
> Foundation board for consideration at the meeting next week.
We have had 3 very good cha
Marvin my apologies - I didn't get a chance to do it immediately and then
because I don't have edit rights currently I asked Azeez to edit that
sentence in but that was a few days later ..
As Ross said that's what I sent via email before and in any case its a
positive thing for the proposal.
Howe
Not "your bad". An obvious change based on discussion.
IMO, I say "Marvin is being overly pedantic."
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Ross Gardler
wrote:
> Marvin,
>
> That change was agreed in the discuss thread. I failed to look to see if it
> had been made before I called the vote. My bad.
>
Please don't apologize for a change that is proper and Right. In fact,
when you look at the *actual* change, it is awesome. It is a clear
benefit for the podling and project, and a demonstration of WSO2's
generosity around the trademarks that it has worked to build.
There should not be a need to a
45 matches
Mail list logo
