This has been the subject of prior conversations, but I'm opening a
thread in some hope of reaching a definitive resolution.
Some of our non-graduating podlings have a common problem. They look
good in all ways except growth. This inhibits graduation from 2.5
standpoints:
1) they are dubiously la
> If the Incubator is not sure that a podling is small but healthy, then
> would the board be in a better position to make that judgement after
> graduation?
In the case at hand (Isis), I'd propose that the IPMC could assert
that they are healthy -- with an asterix. Never having seen them
incorpor
ast
> as others of course.
> We should try to get at bit more folks interrested.
>
>
> But they have 3, 4 frequent committers which do a very good job. And the team
> has really good community skills!
> Thus I'm not yet particularly worried.
>
> LieGrue,
>
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
>> Sam,
>>
>> Rather than argue about the existence and interpretation of messages
>> about squashing stale podlings, how about this adjustment to my
>&
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 5:28 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Benson Margulies
>>> wrote:
>>>> Sam,
>>&
earning here is that my topic needs to go take
a rest until the topic of non-responsible mentors is under control.
>
> Upayavira
>
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012, at 08:10 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Benson Margulies
>> wrote:
>> >
>>
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Franklin, Matthew B.
wrote:
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Alan D.Cabrera [mailto:l...@toolazydogs.com]
>>Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 3:47 PM
>>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>Subject: Maven coordinate for incubating podlings
>>
>>It's my understanding t
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> ...Ignore the proposal. It is out of date, since the podling has already
>> started. The Bloodhound and Trac communities already have a new non-fork
>> plan and are executing on th
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:49 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> wrote:
>> It is not helpful to have a number of directors contradicting each
>> other on general@, never coming to consensus. In fact, its maddening.
>
> I see no indication of
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Michael Stroucken wrote:
> Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>
>> Let's stop discussing this issue in the abstract then and take
>> a look at the current set of reports. Of the ones with signatures
>> of mentors, I see very little to gripe about- the topics and subjects
>> are
And here we return to a thread of some weeks ago. One chair can't
review all those reports and push the bounce buttons. Some other
people have to step up to help.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 3:48 PM, ant elder wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:58
ect. The situation will resolve itself one way or the
> other soon.
>
> Regards,
> Stuart
>
>
> On 11 Jan 2012, at 23:05, ant elder wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Benson Margu
his discussion. Both people who
> agree with me and people see things differently. Anything would be
> better than mindlessly forwarding on reports without actually reading
> them.
>
>> On 11 Jan 2012, at 23:05, ant elder wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10
I would appreciate it if the participants in this discussion would be
really clear about their views about several different podling
profiles.
a: A reasonably diverse group of 5-7 people start a podling. A year
later, they've made a release or two, but no one new has turned up.
Mentors attest to g
Don,
I think that place where you, Leo, and Sam meet up is in the
identification and clarification of *minimal* legal and procedural
requirements.
Sam's repeated over and over that he is, in effect, trying to
establish the minimal level of oversight and supervision of podlings
(and that the quest
diately below be and
> hereby are appointed to serve as the initial members of the
> Apache OpenNLP Project:
>
> William Silvia
> Thomas Morton
> Jason Baldridge
> James Kosin
> Jörn Kottmann
> Aliaksandr Autayeu
> Boris Galitsky
> Grant Ingersoll
> Bens
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:26 AM, Karl Wright wrote:
> My opinion: It's one thing to try to involve yourself in the fortunes
> of one or two projects in addition to your own, and be willing to
> provide general opinions, and be willing to contribute content to the
> incubator's policy pages. But t
+1
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 8:30 PM, sebb wrote:
> On 23 January 2012 06:20, Prescott Nasser wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>>
>> Lucene.Net 2.9.4g is ready for release.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is very similar to our release at the end of November, however we have
>> used
>> generics where appropriate to g
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> When did you resign?
Noel hasn't, as far as I have been able to track the email, formally
resigned. He sent email stating that he was willing to step aside if
the community wanted to elect someone else. Someone could nominate him
now, in f
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> On Jan 29, 2012, at 11:24 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> On 1/29/2012 12:11 AM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>>>
>>> I intend to nominate Noel J. Bergman but would like to see the community
>>> come to a consensus about the rotation of th
I'd like to nominate Noel to continue as chair. Noel hasn't resigned,
and we don't have a consensus on rotation. So I think any vote we hold
to recommend a chair to the board should include the option of his
sticking in place unless he chooses to remove himself from the
running.
--
> +1
> But shouldn't we agree on a rotationi/reelection before we do the nominations?
Christian, I hate to repeat myself, but could I direct your attention
to my recent message? If you think that a rotation policy should come
first, start a thread proposing a rotation policy, and we can all
leave
On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
> On Jan 29, 2012, at 6:18 AM, Ate Douma wrote:
>
>>
>> FTR: as should be clear from my above response, I disagree with the topic of
>> this discussion thread. This should be about Regular (re)election of the PMC
>> Chair. Regular rotatio
Dear Proposed Syncope mentors:
Please post messages on this thread indicating your prior experience
as mentors, if any, and your willing to remain in place as active
mentors for at least a year.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Mark Strube
I apologize if my choice of words here engendered a belief that I was
trying to hold mentors to a new standard.
The IPMC has been discussing the problem of mentors who don't do their
job. I'm trying to approach this problem from the front end, instead
of waiting for it to be a problem later on.
I
There has been a lot of heated email sent on the incubator lists in
the last few months. It was my mistake not to realize that my email
asking about mentor commitment and experience would be read in the
light of that context.
I don't claim to know why the mentor-less podlings lost their mentors,
a
The word 'justification' occurred nowhere in my email. Nonetheless, I
already apologized for my poor choice of tone. I could see someone
reading my query as calling for a 'resume', but I prefer to think of
it as an 'introduction.'
I will continue to ask proposed podlings to draw a picture of their
At the risk of seeming trite, +1, but ...
This lengthy proposal shifts the supervision responsibility of
podlings from an big IPMC to a set of mentors approved by the board at
the advice of a small iPMC. In other words, a project is born when
three? foundation members, or others deemed appropriate
don't we also have jukka?
On Feb 1, 2012, at 6:17 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> We have already 2 good nominations for the IPMC chair role, Noel and Benson.
>
> I would like add a new name and nominate Chris Mattman as the IPMC
> chair. He does care deeply on the incubator and expresses my fe
I'm going to treat this like any other nomination process and provide
a brief statement.
Volunteeritis: I'm active on the CXF and Maven PMCs, and I am a bit of
an uncle at Mahout and WS, and I've agreed to stick around as a PMC
member on EmpireDB in transition from podling to TLP. My mentor
invent
I have a lateral thought. Assuming for the moment that Chris has
accepted or will accept a nomination, why not recommend *both* of us
to the board as co-chairs? The IPMC is special. New members pop up all
the time and need to be fed to the board; projects need karmic
assistance, etc. Having two wi
called upon to play
referee, except to make it my business to find out the rules promptly.
As for what I think, I've written it.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> From: Benson Margulies
>>To: general@incubator.apache.org
>>Sent: Thursday, Fe
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
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 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
>&g
I've added http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/AlternativeIncubatorAnalysis
to the wiki, offering a more or less concrete alternative that is more
evolutionary and less revolutionary. Get out your darts, and feel free
to edit.
-
To u
ocument, not just from you, and b) try
> to remove as many names as possible. It also might be helpful if the
> proposal was worded as if Chris' didn't exist. Just document what the
> process would be and how it solves the problems we have now.
>
> Ralph
>
&g
t the
>> process would be and how it solves the problems we have now.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Feb 4, 2012, at 5:48 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>>
>>> I've added http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/AlternativeIncubatorAnalysis
>>> t
Ralph, I'm inclined to hair up the chart to distinguish 'podlings'
from 'probationary projects'. Otherwise, fine. I'll do that.
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Feb 4, 2012, at 8:51 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>> I s
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Feb 3, 2012, at 10:11 PM, Scott Wilson wrote:
>
>> On 3 Feb 2012, at 23:17, Benson Margulies wrote:
>>
>>> A number of people are asking for the incubator PMC to take a deep
>>> breath and allow roo
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
> On Feb 4, 2012, at 8:59 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>> Ralph, I'm inclined to hair up the chart to distinguish 'podlings'
>> from 'probationary projects'. Otherwise, fine. I'll do that.
>
Right now they are on very polar ends of the whole
> discussion, which suggests neither until the incubator and board choose
> a path forward.
I don't find the formulation 'polar opposites' helpful, let alone
prior remarks about whether the two of us can agree about something.
It's not up to us
Bill characterized this situation as writing a proposal to the board
to to blow up and replace the incubator, and that has colored my
writing. Bill has also been the most vehement opponent of one of the
possible evolutionary strategies: to elect people to the PMC on the
strength (only) of their abi
ent. I will set my egg-timer to wait at least 24 hours
before consuming any more bandwidth.
--benson
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:44 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/6/2012 1:33 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>> Bill has also been the most vehement opponent of one of the
>> possible evo
+1 (binding)
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: Emmanuel Lecharny
>> To: general@incubator.apache.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2012 2:04 PM
>> Subject: Re: [VOTE][PROPOSAL] Syncope joi
+1
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Martijn Dashorst
wrote:
> +1, retire (I don't have a better opinion to throw at the problem than
> the owning community :)
>
> Martijn
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> As discussed earlier and now shown below, the HISE comm
I am happy to step out of the way for Jukka. He was clever enough to
stay out of the email s*** storm, and that alone, in my mind, renders
him most qualified.
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Christian Grobmeier wrote:
> I already mentioned that I would have nominated you, and so I am
> delighted
trated
> here during these discussions, I will hold this VOTE on the public list.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> P.S. Here's my +1. Thanks buddy.
>
> On Feb 8, 2012, at 3:11 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>> I am happy to step out of the way for Jukka. He
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Feb 9, 2012, at 2:00 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Benson Margulies
>> wrote:
>>> +1 (binding)
>>
>> +1 (binding)
>>
>>> From my perspective, Chris
+1
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> The Jena PPMC has voted to release
>
> Apache Jena TDB 0.9.0-incubating
>
> and we would now be grateful if members of IPMC would review and vote for
> this release.
>
> == Overview
>
> This will be the second incubator release for by Jen
+1
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Dan Haywood
wrote:
> Isis is in the process of voting on 0.2.0-incubating (RC3).
>
> The thread below has the details, along with current votes cast.
>
> We still need one more +1 from a member before we can release.
>
> I'd like to close this vote in 72 hour
-1 here.
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 7:38 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> strictly -1 for forcing a name change on graduation.
>
> That would just cause additional overhead without any benefit.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: Greg Stein
>> To: general@incubator.apache.o
I don't think it's a good question. I think that it is typical of the
sort of hypothetical question which leads to heaps of scorn from Sam.
I can imagine circumstances where it would make some sense, and some
cases where it would be evidence of a serious problem in a TLP.
The Foundation is suppos
+1
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
> +1
>
> Niall
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Arvind Prabhakar wrote:
>> This is a call for vote to graduate Sqoop podling from Apache Incubator.
>>
>> Sqoop entered Incubator in June of 2011. Since then it has added three
>> new c
+0 votes
> 0 -1 votes
>
> IPMC:
> +1 Alan Cabrera
> +1 Benson Margulies
>
> Committer/PPMC:
> +1 Adam Fuchs
> +1 David Medinets
> +1 Chris Waring
> +1 Eric Newton
> +1 John Vines
> +1 Keith Turner
>
> Community:
> +1 Michael Van Geertruy
>
&
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:31 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Benson Margulies
>> wrote:
>> > Leo, are you out there?
>>
>> Hmm? Oh, this again...
>>
>> Having
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:31 AM, Alex Karasulu
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
>> >
>> >> O
I'm willing to be added or voted if the community wants to keep me around.
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Billie J Rinaldi
> wrote:
>> Please vote on recommending the graduation of
>> Apache Accumulo with the following resolution to
>> the ASF
Jukka's recent email and activity are precisely what I was hoping for
when I joined the chorus of voices for new leadership.
On this thread, I have a thought or two. Of the podlings I have known,
most required very little supervision. The single largest exception
has always been getting the first
Folks,
I'm a little puzzled by the lack of response here. No one's objecting,
but not much of anyone's voting +1, either. The board meeting looms.
Not that it would be the end of the world if it takes another month,
but they'd just as soon get on with it.
--benson
---
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 5:29 PM, ant elder wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
>> Folks,
>>
>> I'm a little puzzled by the lack of response here. No one's objecting,
>> but not much of anyone's voting +1, either. The
+1
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Leo Simons wrote:
> +1 from me.
>
> Can we get 2 more IPMC votes?
>
> (Checked KEYS, signatures, LICENSEs, NOTICEs, license headers. Built
> source release, watched maven download the internet. Ran compiled
> source and binary distribution and played with web
+1
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Currently new podlings have most of their infrastructure (lists, web
> site, svn, etc.) set up under incubator.apache.org and
> repos/asf/incubator. As a consequence they need to perform an extra
> infrastructure migration when t
Roy,
Of course you, personally, can't be expected to supervise all projects
or fix all documentation. At the same time, there's something a little
depressing about the situation. On the one hand, the principle at work
here is, to paraphrase you, absolutely central to the defined mission
of the Fou
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Roy T. Fielding
> wrote:
> > Yes, it's called a -deps package, and individuals occasionally produce
> > them and even redistribute them from our servers (as binaries).
>
> So, to move this discussion
Karl,
I hope that you are making this too hard.
We don't care about the contents of someone else's binaries. If you
make and deploy a -deps package of third-party binaries, as a
convenience for your users, it can contain any strange mixture of
sources and binaries it contains. If you provide a s
se are covered by the Apache 2.0 license.
>
> Karl
>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:14 PM, sebb wrote:
>> On 2 April 2012 17:53, Benson Margulies wrote:
>>> Karl,
>>>
>>> I hope that you are making this too hard.
>>>
>>> We don't car
+1 binding mentor
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:20 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> ...We ask that the IPMC approve this graduation request though this VOTE.
>
> [X ] +1 Recommend to the ASF Board that Apache Jena Proposal
> is ready to gr
Karl,
I'm exceedingly sorry here that the IPMC as a whole let you down by
not turning into these issues and dealing with them at the outset.
There's been a lot of sensitivity expressed lately to Apache projects
stepping on each other's toes.
Personally, I have no objection to including mutant jar
+1
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Paolo Castagna
wrote:
> Hi,
> here is a vote on a release for Apache Jena LARQ module:
> jena-larq-1.0.0-incubating.
>
> Please vote to approve this release:
>
> [ ] +1 Approve the release
> [ ] 0 Don't care
> [ ] -1 Don't release, because ...
>
> This vo
Graduation is very much *not* about maturity of the code, and very
much about maturity of the community.
2012/4/16 Juan Pablo Santos Rodríguez :
> Hi Ross,
>
> no worries, community voting is also meant to bring up this kind of
> conversations too. I will try to -briefly- express my opinion.
>
> Y
> Lucene.NET
> - active: Stefan Bodewig
> - inactive: Benson Margulies, Gianugo Rabellino
Guilty as charged. I didn't even realize that I was a mentor until
comparatively recently, and I keep thinking that they will graduate
any minute. I'm not set up to test their releases
If you don't want to be a Shepherd, don't sign up. The board asked us
to do a better job of reviewing reports and detecting mentor
deficiencies. This is a plan to accomplish that.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incu
I was late to volunteer. Do you have any leftover projects?
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> I've done my shepherd reviews and made one comment (about Amber) on
> this list). I'm not sure where you want general observations recording
> but I have moved the projects to the rec
Well, the Wiki page explicitly says that the chair will assign.
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> No such thing as "leftover". Doubling up (or more) is just fine.
>
> Q is whether there are some under-reviewed...
> On May 8, 2012 6:40 AM, "Benson Ma
I'm embarrassed to report that I'm feeling a bit foggy on the new
committer policy, and a quick tour with google failed to find it on a
web page. We're long on pages about initial podling setup, and not so
long on others.
So, if a podling has held a vote for a new contributor, what exactly
happens
Yes, thank you both. Every so often maxwel's daemon sends all the
google results to the wrong side of the internet for me.
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Billie J Rinaldi
wrote:
> On Friday, May 18, 2012 2:03:39 PM, "Benson Margulies"
> wrote:
>> I'm embarras
Looks like I could pitch in on this one.
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Luciano Resende wrote:
> On Sunday, May 20, 2012, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I just talked to Martin Cooper who was listed as a PhotArk mentor
>> together with Luciano Resende. Martin actually resigned from the IPM
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Ralph Goers
wrote:
> Right after I read Jukka's email that started this thread and I posted my
> reply and discovered to my shock that they had started a graduation vote. I
> am shocked because I have pointed out repeatedly the project's complete lack
> of div
+1 (binding) ...
And a friendly reminder to the ppmc via their mentors -- in response
to that email about limiting the initial committers to a tight group.
They will soon be learning that the big challenge of incubation is not
writing a lot of code, its recruiting new faces. They'll want to
switch
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Steve Loughran
wrote:
> On 24 May 2012 06:15, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>> I've met other groups of people who like a JIRA centric view
>> of the world. I suspect that if they did a bunch of other good things
>> called out below,
So, what message here should the incubator send a podling, or the
foundation send a TLP? I really don't mean this as a rhetorical
question at all, I'm honestly puzzled. In the case of Lucene, I've
been hanging out for months, and I feel perfectly confident that it's
a healthy community by any found
Marvin,
I am at your disposal to collaborate on something here; note my reply
at infrastructure@. It seems to me that this thread would largely go
better over there, now that the caveat that 'a podling run entirely on
JIRA may have community problems' has been delivered.
--benson
---
I'll see Jukka one and raise him one. I have advised potential
podlings to be very conservative with their initial list, and keep
some potential contributors in their collective back pocket. This
gives them a ready-made source of community growth, which is typically
the scarcest and most precious c
Ross,
I can see why my 'sandbag' approach makes you uncomfortable. I've
suggested it once or twice when a proposed podling had a lot of
interested parties already involved. This is a two-edged situation. On
the one hand, instant size and diversity. On the other hand, that may
represent the pool of
I know that I, and I think that Marvin, got a bit distracted by their
exact choice of wording. I join him in agreeing with you that the
people proposing a podling should be entitled, no, encouraged, to
control their list of initial collaborators. Also note the other email
in this thread about wanti
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 7:13 AM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> Doesn't the IPMC (and not any individuals, even Roy) decide what the
> official Incubation policies should be? Ralph's reply, and my general
> reading of the feeling in the IPMC is that graduation votes *should* take
> affiliation diversity
The diversity (so-called) requirement is often stated in terms of the
risk of the project being stranded if a company changes course. From
what I see around the Foundation, this is usually a risk much akin to
the risk of all the air molecules congregating in one corner of the
room at the board F2F,
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the report, Isis!
>
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Apache Wiki wrote:
>> + - only really one issue: need to demonstrate can bring in at least one
>> + new committer. At that point, we feel that we have done enou
Wearing the very small hat of shepherd, I write to start a discussion
of moving Kato to the attic.
The last sign of activity was at the last reporting period, and the
only activity then was for one contributor to note that he had really
no time to spend on the project and the future needed to be d
Based on the status of this podling as reported in the June board
report, I propose that the IPMC retire the Kato podling.
I'm not sure how long a vote for this should remain open.
here is my +1.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: genera
ours.
>
> On Jun 26, 2012, at 7:29 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
>
>> Based on the status of this podling as reported in the June board
>> report, I propose that the IPMC retire the Kato podling.
>>
>> I'm n
Chuckwa looks pretty normal; report in place, traffic on mailing list.
I don't see any particular cause for concern.
Neither DirectMemory or Mesos has filed a report yet, but also their
dev lists look pretty good. DirectMemory does seem to lack a developer
resource page on their web site that poin
Let me try this again.
> Chuckwa looks pretty normal; report in place, traffic on mailing list.
> I don't see any particular cause for concern. It's one of our podlings that
is all set except for not having added committers. Mentors, do you think
they could graduate anyhow?
>
> Neither DirectMemo
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Niall Pemberton
wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 8:46 PM, Benson Margulies
> wrote:
>> Let me try this again.
>>
>>> Chuckwa looks pretty normal; report in place, traffic on mailing list.
>>> I don't see any particular ca
to be your 'champion' for this purpose if you
decide to go here, or perhaps some other member of the Incubator PMC
will step up who has an interest.
Thanks,
Benson Margulies
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Suleman Khan wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> In Fraunhofer AISEC, we develop
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> On Jul 3, 2012, at 12:06 PM, Nicolas Lalevée wrote:
>
>>
>> Le 3 juil. 2012 à 19:00, Jukka Zitting a écrit :
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Nicolas Lalevée
>>> wrote:
The primary target for Easyant will be being a sub
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Roger Schildmeijer
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The AWF community has voted to retire the project.
> Following the retirement guide [1], I now call the Incubator PMC to vote on
> confirming this decision. (Will be open for 72 hours).
>
>[ ] +1 Retire the AWF project
>[
A thread on the subject of EasyAnt highlighted some perplexity for me,
and I think that it deserves a thread of its own.
Once upon a time, the Foundation had a set of 'Umbrella projects'.
These were PMCs that managed a collection of 'sub-projects', each
considered a relatively independent communit
I probably should have been clearer about my mediocre availability for
Shepherding activities until 17 July. I will be happy to become a
burr under the saddle of these projects as needed them, but I'm not in
a position to be helpful in beating reports out of them.
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:22 PM
501 - 600 of 697 matches
Mail list logo
