On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:30 PM Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 9:10 PM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > wrote: > > I'm +0.5 for this right now. There's some challenges I would like to see > > answered to be able to move forward on this. > > > > - Who controls the ACLs? I have some strong opinions of the ACL. > > Specifically, when the podling joins the incubator, I expect that the > > "OpenWhisk" organization be handed over to us, and all non-IPMC members > are > > removed. Once we receive ICLAs members are granted access back. Or the > > equivalent - we create a new "ApacheOpenWhisk" organization. > > > > - All committers who are in the "incubator" group are granted write > access > > to OpenWhisk > > I have strong opinions on this subject too, and they don't match > yours. It happens. :-) > And I honestly wouldn't want them to match. In my opinion, for this to happen, we need to finish up the LDAP work, allowing each podling to be given a separate permission set. I would generally prefer that approach. > > As one of the member of the IPMC, I would very much like to see > podlings set up *EXACTLY* like PMCs, albeit with oversight by mentors. > That means non-IPMC members are NOT removed, and committers in the > "incubator" group are NOT added, only mentors. > I'm a bit iffy here. IMHO, we cannot leave existing accounts in place on the organization, as we won't have ICLAs on file (except for a few who already exist I bet). What I don't want to see is the PPMC, for non-IPMC members, be given the ability to grant committer privileges to the repo without having an ICLA on file. > > That being said, as the person who volunteered to set up LDAP for > podlings, I will set aside my preference in favor of the consensus of > the IPMC. Logistically, however, giving every member of the incubator > group write access to an existing GitHub repository would be a > nightmare. Granting mentors (a much smaller set) would be a smaller > set. > > > - the ASF still needs to maintain records of the revision history. I > would > > like to understand the plan to provide this history. > > Here's an example: > > https://matt.apache.org/pushlogs.html?repo=whimsy > > > I'm not very comfortable with a policy that allows podlings to do things > > they can't do as TLPs. This is setting up for major delays in > graduation. > > The goal, for quite some time now, has been to resolve GitHub as a > Master one way or another. It is time to do so. If the conclusion is > that GitHub as a Master is not to be, OpenWhisk will need to be > migrated at that time. Until then, there is no reason to migrate it > only to potentially migrate it back. > > > John > > - Sam Ruby > > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:23 PM Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> As some of you may have seen the OpenWhisk podling being discussed now > has > >> requested to use GitHub as its primary master. Greg Stein our ASF Infra > >> Admin > >> has OK’ed this for OpenWhisk iff the IPMC is OK with it. > >> > >> I ask now: > >> > >> 1. Is the IPMC OK with this for OpenWhisk? > >> 2. Is the IPMC OK with this in general availability for Podlings? > >> > >> I am +1 on both (IPMC hat on). > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Chris > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> 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 > >
