It's optional, u need 3 +1 binding votes for a release to pass; so u r good to close the vote and finalize the release
Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 30, 2016, at 9:31 PM, Steve Blackmon <sblack...@apache.org> wrote: > > Will do. I was leaving vote open for the full 72 hour duration. Is that > optional once a quorum to release is reached? > > >> On Sep 30, 2016 6:20 PM, "Suneel Marthi" <smar...@apache.org> wrote: >> @Steve I see 3 +1 binding iPMC votes for 0.3-incubating release, u may want >> to close the vote and finalize the release. >> >>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:30 PM, sblackmon <sblack...@apache.org> wrote: >>> Thanks Suneel! >>> >>> One key point from the original thread was the need to have a shared vision >>> of what improvements would position the project well for community and user >>> growth over the short and medium term. >>> >>> I’ve begun adding issues in line with the themes I mentioned and >>> associating them to the releases labelled 0.4 - 0.6 and intend to come back >>> to the list with some proposals shortly. >>> >>> One thing you could help with immediately is to validate our 0.3-incubating >>> release and contribute an IPMC vote over on general. >>> >>> >>>> On September 29, 2016 at 5:46:43 PM, Suneel Marthi (smar...@apache.org) >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Ate and Steve, >>>> >>>> I will be glad to contribute code too and be more involved in keeping the >>>> project moving. If u could point me to jiras I could tackle I'll get >>>> started on that. >>>> >>>> Suneel >>>> >>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Ate Douma <a...@douma.nu> wrote: >>>> >>>> > Hi Steve, community, silent followers, >>>> > >>>> > In general the proposal and suggestions from Steve are all good steps >>>> > forward. >>>> > >>>> > But I'm for now top posting and forking that discussion to try address >>>> > everyone >>>> > in the community directly, because I think there are other and more >>>> > critical >>>> > actions needed to make clear to the Incubator PMC that cancelling of >>>> > this >>>> > project retirement will not end up to be just a temporary pause. >>>> > >>>> > The first and highest priority action should be getting more and diverse >>>> > involvement and active participation from the community. >>>> > The steps suggested by Steve are definitely helpful and needed as well. >>>> > But it just as well might end up remaining a one man's task list... >>>> > >>>> > Instead, we need to get more active input and suggestions/questions from >>>> > others >>>> > in the community, like Joey, our new mentor Suneel, and hopefully as >>>> > well >>>> > from >>>> > the W3C ActivityStream 2.0 working group people, like Benjamin Young. >>>> > >>>> > And we need not just 'talk' feedback, but actual interest and >>>> > participation >>>> > with concrete contributions. >>>> > (Suneel: I know you signed up just to mentor, which of course also is >>>> > needed) >>>> > >>>> > We need to see and show serious promise for growth of the project >>>> > community to >>>> > the IPMC, and in a reasonable short time frame (a few months at most). >>>> > Without that I think the changes of getting this project back on its >>>> > feet >>>> > will >>>> > remain unrealistic, and then better be stopped. >>>> > >>>> > This also was indicated by the request from John Ament (the Incubator >>>> > Chair), to >>>> > switch back to monthly reporting for the coming 3 months, so the IPMC >>>> > can >>>> > monitor the progress and chances for success. And if not, probably will >>>> > decide >>>> > (or at least vote) for a final retirement after all. >>>> > I agree with John this make perfectly sense, and I'll update the >>>> > reporting >>>> > schedule for Streams shortly to make it so. >>>> > >>>> > Meaning: a next Incubator board report will need to be delivered monthly >>>> > for >>>> > at least the coming 3 months. >>>> > We better make sure there is positive news to report :-) >>>> > >>>> > I also cc'ed Benjamin Young (who AFAIK hasn't subscribed to this list) >>>> > to see what ideas he has and what concrete actions can take in getting >>>> > the >>>> > W3C >>>> > ActivityStreams 2.0 people involved as well. >>>> > >>>> > And I'm explicitly calling out to the mostly silent community, including >>>> > the >>>> > other committers, to speak up and let us know what you might be able to >>>> > do >>>> > for >>>> > the project *now*: ideas, feedback, testing, maybe even code >>>> > contributions? >>>> > >>>> > Kind regards, Ate >>>> > >>>> > On 2016-09-28 22:00, sblackmon wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> All, >>>> >> >>>> >> Joey brought this up over the weekend and I think a discussion is >>>> >> overdue >>>> >> on the topic. >>>> >> >>>> >> Encouraging community growth and performing regular releases are on our >>>> >> list of graduation criteria. >>>> >> >>>> >> A few easy behaviors we can adopt to take to make progress on these >>>> >> goals: >>>> >> - planning release versions around one or two significant improvements >>>> >> - setting target dates to kick off upcoming releases >>>> >> - prioritizing our backlog after each release >>>> >> - discussing project and community milestones openly on the list >>>> >> - organizing JIRA so that all contributors (especially new) can decide >>>> >> where it’s most important to focus their efforts >>>> >> >>>> >> I think to get things moving again and demonstrate we are capable of >>>> >> consistent progress, we should aim to perform a release once per month >>>> >> around the end of the month. >>>> >> >>>> >> As for what to focus on, I think it’s time to discuss adopting Activity >>>> >> Streams 2.0, figure out what form that transition would take, and get >>>> >> started down that path. Working implementations demonstrate the >>>> >> suitability of the standard and drive it’s adoption, and the prospects >>>> >> of >>>> >> this project are closely tied to those of the standard. Separate >>>> >> DISCUSS >>>> >> coming on this topic. >>>> >> >>>> >> Also important for the ‘reboot’ theme, we should delete any modules we >>>> >> aren’t going to maintain, and bring all modules we are going to >>>> >> maintain up >>>> >> to acceptable standards - exactly what that means is an open question >>>> >> but >>>> >> broadly they should have documentation, code comments, and tests at the >>>> >> level of a typical module in a typical TLP. >>>> >> >>>> >> Expanding the examples to demonstrate how to use streams providers and >>>> >> processors within various execution engines and fixing any bugs that >>>> >> have >>>> >> been reported is desirable as well. Adding at least one new example per >>>> >> release is a good target for now. >>>> >> >>>> >> I have created some future versions with target release dates in JIRA >>>> >> and >>>> >> invite all committers to associate existing or new issues with those >>>> >> releases, or anyone who can’t modify JIRA to summarize their thoughts >>>> >> and >>>> >> share with the list and I will incorporate those ideas into JIRA. This >>>> >> should be the default reference for anyone looking for a way to help - >>>> >> look >>>> >> at issues associated with the next few releases and the top of the >>>> >> backlog >>>> >> and pick something that appeals and is in line with your experience. >>>> >> >>>> >> Anything else that should be a top priority for the rest of the year? >>>> >> Or >>>> >> other ideas on improving planning and coordination? >>>> >> >>>> >> Steve >>>> >> >>>> >> On September 24, 2016 at 1:01:02 PM, apache (sblack...@apache.org) >>>> >> wrote: >>>> >> - This has already come up, but maybe ActivityStreams 2.0 support would >>>> >> broaden the community and motivate more work. It's also a concrete >>>> >> goal to work toward so people would know where they can start. >>>> >> - Steve and I did a little work here a few months ago, but the JIRA >>>> >> could >>>> >> reflect the priorities better and I think keep the community working in >>>> >> a >>>> >> common direction. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > >>
