Fair enough. I don't think I ever agreed they are orthogonal. In fact the only concern I have consistently stated, and is reflected on the summary below, is that it, potentially, moves the problem rather than solves it.
That being said, if we accept its orthogonal then your point is a good one. Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Roman Shaposhnik<mailto:ro...@shaposhnik.org> Sent: 2/23/2015 4:49 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org<mailto:general@incubator.apache.org> Subject: Re: Practical next steps for pTLP experiment On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) <ross.gard...@microsoft.com> wrote: > It's not unfair. I deliberately tried to say i don't want to distract from > the handover process. I though we all agreed that whatever pTLP is -- it is absolutely 100% orthogonal to the process that Incubator is in business of managing. There will be some overlap of people involved in both, but we don't need to wait on Incubator to proceed with pTLP any more than we'd need to wait on Incubator to do something in Hadoop land (although quite a few Hadoop folks are on IPMC). > I don't think its productive to make someone's support or otherwise of an > experiment > to distract from getting the right chair to replace you. That would be a fair point if we didn't try as hard as we can to decouple the two. If what you're saying is: currently there's no way for Incubator NOT to be involved in pTLP AND if that's the opinion shared by the majority on the board, I'd have to re-evaluate things on my end. I thought Greg convinced you all that it must be de-coupled. That's what I based my calculations on. Thanks, Roman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
