This is larger debate for me. I've been watching the @general thread and reading some old blog posts regarding Apache. I'd like to see Apache become leaner. I'm new to Apache so it's pretty rude to be complaining at this point, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way: getting a project set up in Apache is very painful compared to Github and it shouldn't be so. The best things about Apache are the encouragement of community, support, legal and quality validations, etc. The worst things about Apache are its tool chain and its beaurocratic-ness.
-JZ On May 8, 2013, at 12:04 PM, Alan Cabrera <[email protected]> wrote: > It is a long time to wait. > > But consider this, the Curator project is a podling and so it's under > probation. Hence the second 72 hour vote. Once this podling graduates the > second vote/review will no longer be needed. > > Why 72 hours? The ASF is a volunteer organization whose membership spans the > globe. To be respectful of other members' time we allow 72 hours so that > thoughtful reviews can take place. > > > Regards, > Alan > > > On May 8, 2013, at 11:42 AM, Jordan Zimmerman <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> FWIW - Apache needs to consider being more agile. Waiting two 72 hour >> periods is a LONG time these days for a release. >> >> -JZ >> >> On May 8, 2013, at 11:32 AM, Chip Childers <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 11:04:18AM -0700, Jordan Zimmerman wrote: >>>> There have been no votes on the Curator release on @general and no >>>> comments. Is that normal? Can we move to release with just our group's >>>> votes? I'd hope to close voting tomorrow (72 hours). >>>> >>>> -JZ >>> >>> You have 3 +1 votes already. When I was release managing for Apache >>> CloudStack (as a podling), we would usually come into the IPMC vote >>> with 3 mentor votes already binding at the IPMC level. This meant that >>> we were ready to just sit for 72 hours and then do the release. >>> >>> So consider it a good thing! >> >
