Hey Ross, On Feb 4, 2012, at 9:03 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> Chris, seriously, take a break. You are not hearing what I'm trying to say > and therefore not answering my concerns, directly at least. I could say the same thing to you. :) We both care about this stuff, which is why we keep replying. I'm happy to continue to reply, so long as you are when I feel it's warranted. I've ignored a few of them that I didn't have the energy to, but that's the point of a mailing list. At the end of the day, I hope with the diligence and effort I've provided to reply to folks concerns (whether they think I've replied or addressed them or not), I am basically brain dumping and trying to not leave any question as to what my opinions are. > > For an example see where you use the word failure in this reply - that word > has no bearing on anything I have said, yet you directly attribute it to > me. Ross, read your email. You said: >> >> >> Arguably, legal and the Legal Committee have a hand in this, no? >> I'm not sure it was entirely managed by the IPMC before. > > Again, I agree the IPMC has not always worked, but it has not always failed > either. You said "failed", suggesting I had implied the Incubator was a failure, or suggesting I don't know what to be honest. But you used the word, not me, buddy. > > I've made up my mind about how I feel about this proposal. In general I > like it. I have some concerns that I will express in a summary document > that I'll share with ComDev. At this point b I'm not sure if my concerns > are misplaced our not. Your concerns are valid. I hope you can agree that at least when you've tried to raise one, I've tried to reply to it; whether it's to your satisfaction or not that's up to you, but at least I've tried. > > Thanks for taking the time to try and understand my issues. Enjoy the rest > of your weekend. You too, dude. I'm sure at some point, we'll all sit down have a beer about this stuff. In the interim, I'll set up the bastille (ooops, I mean, sorry Benson, I didn't mean that.... tee hee) Cheers, Chris > > Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. > On Feb 4, 2012 3:57 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" < > chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > >> Hi Ross, >> >> On Feb 4, 2012, at 2:36 AM, Ross Gardler wrote: >> >>> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. >>> On Feb 4, 2012 3:41 AM, "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" < >>> chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: >>>> [...snip...] >>>>> Who fixes it? >>>> >>>> The project's PMC. And if not, the project's VP. And if not that, the >>> board, >>>> or the membership. Just like the current way it works for existing TLPs. >>> >>> if l the "membership" what is the channel used and who is responsible for >>> ensuring that channel works? >> >> The same channel that exists today for normal projects. The board is >> elected by the membership. If the board doesn't fix the problem for the >> project, and the membership is unpleased, the members elect a new >> board that will fix it. Or they won't. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> Who is maintaining the standards with respect to IP >>>>> management? >>>> >>>> How much work is there maintaing them? What's left to do? >>> >>> I mean in individual projects, not in defining policy. Even in the >> poddling >>> that I've felt would benefit from this proposal the RM has learned by his >>> mistakes. Some of which were caught by IPMC review when an additional >> vote >>> was needed. >> >> Sure, and in my proposal it'll be caught by review of having 3 ASF members >> on the project; by actually signing up strong ASF members (or "mentors") >> to the project (as Benson said) who care about that stuff (release review, >> etc.), and by having >> a VP for the project. Or by the board. Or by the legal committee. >> >> If you think about it, I'm simply proposing to use what's there, and to >> move more towards the existing foundation resources, than to pretend >> that the IPMC was the only place that we could get this information from. >> A lot of the passionate legal folks or release review folks in the IPMC >> (ant, Sam, etc.) are also members of the legal committee, and/or lurk >> there. A lot of the release passionate folks (Joe S., myself etc.) also >> lurk in other >> places that will see releases happening (infra@, etc.). It's not putting >> extra >> burden on them to ask them to flag what they see, or provide advice. >> They're >> doing that already. >> >>> Who provides these cross-checks? >> >> See above. >> >>> >>> You asked if a project couldn't muster the binding votes on a release, >>> what's it doing on the incubator. This project couldn't, but it is still >>> graduating. Ironically when I suggested bringing the RM into the IPMC to >>> help other podlings trying to find votes Bill, who supports this proposal >>> said yes, but required that the RM must refrain from voting on his own >>> releases. That position seems to conflict with this proposal and I'm >>> unclear what the difference is. >> >> I can't speak for Bill, but I can say that Bill "gets" what I am saying >> (and so do quite a few others). Bill is just keeping up with the threads >> right now, and doing a great job. >> >> You'll note I supported giving your RM his VOTE, and in my proposal >> you wouldn't have had problems mustering any binding VOTEs. You'd >> have had them already like any other project management committee. >> >>> >>>> >>>> Arguably, legal and the Legal Committee have a hand in this, no? >>>> I'm not sure it was entirely managed by the IPMC before. >>> >>> Again, I agree the IPMC has not always worked, but it has not always >> failed >>> either. >> >> Stop calling it a failure. I *never* called it a failure. I called it a >> success. >> Even things that are a "success" end. >> >>> >>> Are legal@ going to do reviews when necessary? If not who is? >> >> Of course they are. They do it now for existing projects, that come >> to them and ask (Sam's famous phrase). And even before that, the ASF >> members who >> are on the project committee (and even the non members) need >> to do a bit of reading, and try and help out there as much as possible. >> Signing up to be a PMC member on an incoming project means >> investing the time to help out in some way. The member doesn't have to be >> all >> knowing or be the super star champion. That's why the trust is >> distributed amongst the members of the PMC just like any PMC, >> is funneled through the chair of the committee, and is acted or >> reacted upon by the board, and why the board is elected by >> the membership. >> >> 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/~mattmann/ >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department >> University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
