Donald would be great. Donald - please think about it. It was suggested privately to me that I stay on from mentoring as PMC. If you'll have me, I would be glad to help the new TLP as/if needed.
> On Sep 7, 2017, at 6:07 PM, Pat Ferrel <p...@occamsmachete.com> wrote: > > This has been an informal poll and it looks like people are ready. I suggest > we push for graduation after the next release, which will be done by someone > not Donald, I think we have 2 volunteers? I think this will be a requirement > since it’s been mentioned by several IPMC members. > > I’d like to think several people could be our candidate VP but since most of > them are too busy and since we have another great candidate in Donald, I’d > like to nominate him for TLP Chair/VP. > > I’d suggest we poll the committers and PMC members to see if any want out of > the TLP, and otherwise go with the current list. We should try to add any > committers that are ready before the graduation push, the more the better to > the IPMC. > > We should put this in a proposal and get mentors feedback before applying > since mentors are also IPMC members. > > Andy has mentioned several choices for convention that we should discuss, > like our choice of git flow for commit process. He mentioned rotating Chair, > which seems better suited to a larger project IMO but please chime in if you > like the idea. > > If that is all clear we have to release, have a podling vote, then have the > IPMC vote. If there is anything else regarding how we are run speak up now. > > > On Sep 7, 2017, at 5:01 AM, takako shimamoto <chiboch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'd like to remain as committer and contribute my humble efforts to > the prosperity of the project. > >> I propose we stay with the current PMC and committer list unless someone >> wants to remove themselves. > > It may be good. In fact, most of committers carry out a task with > limited time. Anyway I hope the project will progress in a good > direction. > > > > 2017-09-06 3:43 GMT+09:00 Pat Ferrel <p...@occamsmachete.com>: >> I personally don’t see much benefit in removing people unless they prove the >> exception. AFAIK this generally does not happen in ASF. I’m certainly not >> aware of the process except that it is easier in moving from podling to TLP. >> You prove some worthiness and once that’s done, it’s done. A poll might >> just ask project members if they want to be removed. I have seen people ask >> to be removed from PMC and also “go emeritus” and those are cases of the >> individuals making the choice. >> >> So to settle the role call issue I propose we stay with the current PMC and >> committer list unless someone wants to remove themselves. >> >> As to maturity I agree with Donald that the checklist is heavy in our favor. >> >> >> On Sep 5, 2017, at 11:16 AM, Simon Chan <si...@salesforce.com> wrote: >> >> +1 for graduation >> >>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Donald Szeto <don...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for the clarification Pat! It always help to have Apache veterans to >>> provide historical context to these processes. >>> >>> As for me, I'd like to remain as PMC and committer. >>> >>> I like the idea of polling the current committers and PMC, but like you >>> said, most of them got pretty busy and may not be reading mailing list in a >>> while. Maybe let me try a shout out here and see if anyone would >>> acknowledge it, so that we know whether a poll will be effective. >>> >>> *>> If you're a PMC or committer who see this line but hasn't been replying >>> this thread, please acknowledge. <<* >>> >>> Regarding the maturity model, this is my perception right now: >>> - CD10, CD20, CD30, CD40 (and we start to have CD50 as well) >>> - LC10, LC20, LC30, LC40, LC50 >>> - RE10, RE20, RE30, RE50 (I think we hope to also do RE40 with 0.12) >>> - QU10, QU30, QU40, QU50 (we should put a bit of focus to QU20) >>> - CO10, CO20, CO30, CO40, CO60, CO70 (for CO50, I think we've been >>> operating under the assumption that PMC and contributors are pretty >>> standard definitions by ASF. We can call those out explicitly.) >>> - CS10, CS50 (We are also assuming implicitly CS20, CS30, and CS40 from >>> main ASF doc) >>> - IN10, IN20 >>> >>> Let me know what you think. >>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Pat Ferrel <p...@occamsmachete.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> The Chair, PMC, and Committers may be different after graduation. >>>> PMC/committers are sometimes not active committers but can have a >>> valuable >>>> role as mentors, in non-technical roles, as support people on the mailing >>>> list, or as sometimes committers who don’t seem very active but come in >>>> every so often to make a key contribution. So I hope this doesn’t become >>> a >>>> time to prune too deeply. I’d suggest we only do that if one of the >>>> committers has done something to lessen our project maturity or wants to >>> be >>>> left out for their own reasons. An example of bad behavior is someone >>>> trying to exert corporate dominance (which is severely frowned on by the >>>> ASF). Another would be someone who is disruptive to the point of >>> destroying >>>> team effectiveness. I personally haven’t seen any of this but purposely >>>> don’t read everything so chime in here. >>>> >>>> It would be good to have people declare their interest-level. As for me, >>>> I’d like to remain on the PMC as a committer but have no interest in >>> Chair. >>>> Since people can become busy periodically and not read @dev (me?) we >>> could, >>>> maybe should, poll the current committers and PMC to get the lists ready >>>> for the graduation proposal. >>>> >>>> >>>> Don’t forget that we are not just asking for dev community opinion about >>>> graduation. We are also asking that people check things like the Maturity >>>> Checklist to see it we are ready. http://community.apache.org/ >>>> apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html < >>>> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project- >>> maturity-model.html> >>>> People seem fairly enthusiastic about applying for graduation, but are >>>> there things we need to do before hand? The goal is to show that we do >>> not >>>> require the second level check for decisions that the IPMC provides. The >>>> last release required no changes but had a proviso about content >>> licenses. >>>> This next release should fly through without provisos IMHO. Are there >>> other >>>> things we should do? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sep 1, 2017, at 6:16 AM, takako shimamoto <chiboch...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I entirely agree with everyone else. >>>> I hope the PIO community will become more active after graduation. >>>> >>>>> 2. If we are to graduate, who should we include in the list of the >>>> initial >>>>> PMC? >>>> >>>> Don't all present IPMC members are included in the list of the initial >>> PMC? >>>> >>>> Personally, I think we may as well check and see if present IPMC >>>> members intend to become an initial PMC for graduation. >>>> Members who make a declaration of intent to become it will surely >>>> contribute to the project. >>>> It is a great contribution not only to develop a program but also to >>>> respond to email aggressively or fix document. >>>> >>>> >>>> 2017-08-29 14:20 GMT+09:00 Donald Szeto <don...@apache.org>: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Since the ASF Board meeting in May ( >>>>> http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2017/board_ >>>> minutes_2017_05_17.txt), >>>>> PredictionIO has been considered nearing graduation and I think we are >>>>> almost there. I am kickstarting this thread so that we can discuss on >>>> these >>>>> 3 things: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Does the development community feel ready to graduate? >>>>> 2. If we are to graduate, who should we include in the list of the >>>> initial >>>>> PMC? >>>>> 3. If we are to graduate, who should be the VP of the initial PMC? >>>>> >>>>> These points are relevant for graduation. Please take a look at the >>>>> official graduation guide: >>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html. >>>>> >>>>> In addition, Sara and I have been working to transfer the PredictionIO >>>>> trademark to the ASF. We will keep you updated with our progress. >>>>> >>>>> I would also like to propose to cut a 0.12.0 release by merging JIRAs >>>> that >>>>> have a target version set to 0.12.0-incubating for graduation. 0.12.0 >>>> will >>>>> contain cleanups for minor license and copyright issues that were >>> pointed >>>>> out in previous releases by IPMC. >>>>> >>>>> Let me know what you think. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Donald >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
