On 24 April 2015 at 14:47, Shane Curcuru <a...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> On 4/23/15 5:41 PM, Ross Gardler (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: > > Infra already supports Whimsy so having a TLP is irrelevant in that > > respect (although on reason Sam is doing this is because infra > > expressed a concern about maintaining a service that only had Sam > > working on it). > > To be clear: is the current whimsy.apache.org with a variety of board > agenda, email lookup, etc. services a formally infra-supported service? > Just curious. I would lobby that it should be formally supported at a > normal level (i.e. it's not critical level like email/svn is). > (Apologies if we already formally talked about this) > if you look at the infra ML, it is not full support like e.g. the mail server, but merely a "restart it" help. That was the reason for my question in order to have a fully supported service (upgrades, bug fixes in response to OS upgrades etc, maintaining the vm as such), infra might have wishes to the project. > > The service is separate from the TLP status. We run the service to help > our own project operations, which we'll do in any case. The presumed > pTLP would be to develop the code; I could easily imagine some of the > code being useful as examples outside of the ASF. Being a pTLP would > also make development easier for newcomers, since code/mailinglists/etc. > would all be normalized with other projects. > I thought the pTLP was also there to help in case of OS upgrades and other external things that might affect the running whimsy service. rgds jan i. > > I'm +1 and will join. > > - Shane > > > > > Ross > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org] > > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 2:32 PM > > To: general@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Whimsy PMC > > > > On Thursday, April 23, 2015, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote: > > > >> Initial sketch placed on the wiki: > >> > >> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/WhimsyProposal > >> > >> Anyone who is so inclined is welcome to edit the proposal directly. > >> > >> No urgency or timeframe in mind (other than preferably starting > >> sometime in 2015ish). My current thinking is to follow in Steve's > >> footprints and go directly to TLP, but I'm starting a discussion here > >> (in Incubator) to see if there are any other thoughts on the matter. > > > > I like the proposal, it is very clear, I do miss one bit though. > > > > If this becomes a TLP project is infra then prepared to support keeping > whimsy running 24/7, or do they have additional requirements on the project? > > > > maybe the response to the above could be worked into the proposal. > > > > rgds > > jan i > > > >> > >> - Sam Ruby > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Sent from My iPad, sorry for any misspellings. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
